THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP AND ...
Transcript of THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP AND ...
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP
AND INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOR:
The role of Psychological Empowerment and the effect of Job Autonomy
Student: Deqa Warsame
EMPLID: 2012929
Supervisors: Marloes van Engen
Ayfer A. Veli
Project period: April 2019 – January 2020
Project theme: Exploring the antecedents and outcomes of Inclusive Leadership
2
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovative work
behavior (IWB). Randel et al., (2018) have proposed that inclusive leadership may affect employees’ IWB
through employees’ psychological empowerment. Therefore, the role of psychological empowerment in this
relationship was also investigated. Additionally, the effect of job autonomy was examined as well on the
relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment. To test these relationships, a
cross-sectional study was conducted in which the data yielded a total of 269 respondents. The results
demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between inclusive leadership and IWB, which was indirectly
influenced by psychological empowerment. This means that inclusive leaders are able to increase employees’
psychological empowerment and that when employees are psychological empowered they are more prone to
exhibit IWB. Job autonomy did not enhance the relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological
empowerment. Furthermore, the results indicated that there is a positive relationship between inclusive
leadership and psychological empowerment and psychological empowerment on IWB. At the end of this study,
limitations, ideas for future research and practical implication are discussed. This study contributes to the
understanding of the relationship between leadership and innovation, which helps organizations survive in
more complex and dynamic environments.
Keywords: inclusive leadership, psychological empowerment, innovative work behavior, job autonomy
3
Table of contents
Abstract 2
1. Introduction 4
2. Theoretical framework 5
3. Methodological framework 9
3.1 Research design and procedure 9
3.2 Sample 10
3.3 Measurement of variables 10
3.4 Statistical analysis 12
4. Results 13
4.1 Descriptive statistics 13
4.2 Simple mediation analysis 15
4.3 Simple moderation analysis 17
4.5 Summary of hypothesis testing 19
5. Discussions 19
5.1 Discussion 19
5.2 Limitations 20
5.3 Practical implications and future research 21
5.4 Conclusion 21
References 22
APPENDIX I – Consent letter 29
APPENDIX II – Questionnaire 30
APPENDIX III – Sample’s demographics 40
APPENDIX IV – Component matrix 41
APPENDIX V – Scree plot of Inclusive Leadership 44
4
1. Introduction
Nowadays, innovation has been considered as a crucial factor for the successful growth and functioning of
organizations (Gumusluoglu, & Ilsev, 2009). Organizations can become more innovative by encouraging their
employees to generate new ideas. Many researchers, such as Van de Ven (1986) and Smith (2002), believe such a
behavior can positively influence organizational outcomes. Previous research has found a positive relationship of
certain management and leadership behavior towards innovative work behavior (IWB) (Yukl, 2002; De Jong & Den
Hartog, 2007). The role of the leader can thus be seen as an important driving force of IWB (De Jong, 2006) because
leaders provide support and resources to implement ideas into business processes (Dulebohn et al., 2012). In addition,
a diverse workforce has also been considered to be a valuable factor in being and staying innovative as an organization
(Groysberg & Connoly, 2013). Nishii ad Mayer (2009) has argued that a style of leadership in which everyone feels
included is critical to make a diverse workforce work effectively.). Inclusion is defined by Shore et al. (2011, p. 1265)
“as the degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the workgroup through
experiencing a treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness.” Inclusive leaders tend to
be open and accessible in their contact with employees (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010). This type of leadership
tends to be important in predicting employee behavior (Randel, Dean, Ehrhart, Chung, & Shore, 2016).
IWB has been defined as “all employee behavior aimed at the generation, introduction and/or application
(within a role, group or organization) of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new and intended to benefit the
relevant unit of adoption” (De Spiegelaere, Gyes, & Van Hootegem, 2014, p. 144). Randel et al., (2018) have proposed
that inclusive leadership may affect employees’ IWB through employees’ psychological empowerment. According to
Spreitzer (1995), psychological empowerment is about perceived control in the work environment. When employees
perceive more psychological empowerment from their leader, this enlarges the sense of personal control and drives
employees to show IWB (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997). With a theoretical framework Randel et al., (2018)
conceptualized the effect of inclusive leadership on psychological empowerment and employees’ behavioral
outcomes, because it seems to propose a relevant understanding of the definition and consequences of inclusive
leadership.
Randel et al. (2018) have suggested that future research, in relation to inclusive leadership, should be more
focused on contextual factors since they might influence the effectiveness of the leadership. This study tries to
investigate the potential contextual factor of job autonomy on the strength of the relationship between inclusive
leadership and psychological empowerment. This contextual factor is taken into account because, for an employee to
demonstrate uniqueness, a certain degree of autonomy in his or her job activities may be needed. Therefore, having a
sense of autonomy in one’s work could be considered necessary (Galletta, Portoghese, & Battistelli, 2011).
Job autonomy concerns the amount of freedom, independence and discretion employees have in regards to
their work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). For an employee to show his or her uniqueness, it can be argued that a certain
degree of autonomy in his or her job activities is needed. Therefore, having a sense of autonomy in one’s work might
be viewed as necessary (Galletta, Portoghese, & Battistelli, 2011). The amount of freedom and the thought of affecting
5
a situation have significant impact on how an employee applies this sense of freedom in his or her job activities
(Spector, 1986). Randel et al. (2018) have proposed that inclusive leadership may be an important antecedent of
psychological empowerment. Thus, to what extent does job autonomy significantly help or hinder in this relationship?
In this case, this present study also examines the moderating role of job autonomy.
The existing literature of inclusive leadership can be expanded by analyzing inclusive leadership as an
antecedent to employees’ innovative work behavior. As innovative behavior is considered to be imperative for the
survival of organizations in today’s fast-changing economies, understanding whether inclusive leadership would foster
such innovation through the empowerment of employees is helpful. Furthermore, it would be interesting to know
whether job autonomy may further enhance innovation through its boosting of the effect of inclusive leadership on
innovation. This leads to the following research question:
Is inclusive leadership related to employees’ perceived psychological empowerment and IWB, and does job
autonomy have a moderating role on the relationship between inclusive leadership and employees’ perceived
psychological empowerment?
2. Theoretical framework
The relationship between inclusive leadership and employees’ IWB
In this section, the relation inclusive leadership in to IWB is explained. According to Shore et al. (2011, p. 1265), the
definition of inclusion is “the degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the
workgroup through experiencing a treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness.”
Employees tend to have the need to experience a sense of uniqueness (Shore, et al. 2011). This is when employees
experience the need to perceive that they are distinct from other employees (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). However, if
groups tend to be homogenous, the need for uniqueness will be unfulfilled (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980). This definition
is theoretically embedded by optimal distinctiveness theory, which is an extended theory of social identity theory
(Brewer, 2011). The optimal distinctiveness theory proposes that individuals have the need to be both similar and
different from others at the same time (Brewer, 1991). This need for belongingness and uniqueness have to be met
simultaneously in order for individuals to feel a sense of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011). Both these needs can be
facilitated through inclusive leadership (Randel et al., 2018).
Inclusive leaders tend to stimulate their employees as group members by ensuring justice and equality and
that each member can exercise his or her decision-making power (Randel et al., 2018). Compared with other forms of
leadership that may be conceptually related, inclusive leadership holds the unique nature of fostering acceptance,
belongingness, uniqueness and inclusiveness (Randel et al., 2018). Randel et al. (2018) have stated that inclusive
leadership might facilitate the organization’s employees perceiving belongingness in the organization while
maintaining their uniqueness within the organization as they fully contribute to the organization’s process and
outcomes of innovation. Randel et al. (2018) have also argued that inclusive leadership is conceptualized as a set of
behaviors that enables facilitating group members with different backgrounds. Moreover, inclusive leaders tend to
emphasize shared benefits by focusing on mutual goals, which is the essence of a quality leaders–followers
6
relationship (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). The inclusiveness of leaders tends to provide the
opportunity for employees to participate in the decision-making process to promote an inclusive culture (Edmondson,
Kramer, & Cook, 2004; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). This in turn might lead into employees promoting and
implementing new ideas (Dorenbosch, Engen, & Verhagen, 2005; De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010).
Furthermore, leaders who are able to demonstrate the characteristics of inclusive leadership could initiate a
quality-based relationship that promotes fairness of input and output to all employees (Hollander, 2012). In a quality-
based relationship with leaders who practice inclusive leadership, employees tend to experience an effort–reward
fairness, which encourages them to generate new ideas, promote and implement useful ideas (Janssen & Van Yperen,
2004; Reuvers, Van Engen, Vinkenburg, & Wilson-Evered, 2008). The employees’ IWB refers to the employees’
creativity and how these creative ideas are manifested and implemented (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007). It has been
argued that IWB is considered one of the key components for organizations to survive (e.g., Janssen, 2000; De Jong
& Den Hartog, 2010). However, creativity means generating new ideas (Amabile, 1996), whereas IWB is not only
about creating new ideas but also promoting and implementing useful ideas (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; De Jong
& Den Hartog, 2010).
In contrast with other leadership styles, inclusive leaders tend to show concerns about the interests,
expectations and feelings of their employees, and are willing to provide assistance (Carmeli, Gelbard, & Gefen, 2010;
Choi, Tran, & Park, 2015). In turn, employees might feel more committed to their leaders so that employees are more
likely to reciprocate by showing behavior such as IWB (Pless & Maak, 2004; Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog, & Folger,
2010; Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2011). In this context, leader–member exchange (LMX) theory supports
the relationship of inclusive leadership and IWB. This theory argues that it can be implied that supportive and inclusive
attributes of leadership make employees feel required to repay the leader and employer (Yin, 2013). Inclusive
leadership in the LMX perspective encourages positive LMXs that could develop cognitive thinking and motivation
to engage in creative performance (Choi, Tran, & Park, 2015).
Furthermore, inclusive leaders are likely to provide employees emotional support, which might increase
trustworthiness. As such, inclusive leaders might show that they are able to make unbiased judgments (Nembhard &
Edmondson, 2006; Ryan, 2006; Hollander, 2009). Such behavior could encourage employees to show IWB
(Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009), because inclusive leaders express support to employees (Nembhard & Edmondson,
2006; Hollander, 2012). In turn, employees are more likely to be encouraged to take risks in IWB in the presence of
inclusive leadership. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1a: Inclusive leadership is positively related to employees’ IWB.
The mediating role of psychological empowerment
In this section, the mediating role of psychological empowerment is discussed. There is empirical evidence that an
indirect effect of psychological empowerment on the relationship between inclusive leadership and employees’ IWB
exists (Randel et al., 2017). Employees who experience psychological empowerment as a consequence of inclusive
leadership are more likely to show involvement and to take initiatives, which leads to increased IWB (Conger &
Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 2008).
7
Psychological empowerment is defined as a motivational construct manifested in four cognitions: meaning,
competence, self-determination and impact. Together, these four cognitions reflect an active, rather than a passive,
orientation on the work role (Spreitzer, 1995). When employees perceive a high degree of inclusion within their work
group, they are likely to identify themselves strongly with their work group and feel psychologically empowered. This
empowerment is a result of employees feeling a sense of belongingness in their work group and their contribution
being valued by their work group members (Ashfort & Mael, 1989). Accordingly, inclusion (i.e., belongingness and
uniqueness) should have a positive impact on work group identification and psychological empowerment, which in
turn should lead to positive employees’ IWB. In addition, leaders who show a sense of belongingness and uniqueness
should give employees the feeling that this kind of attitude is welcomed and valued as a consequence,
giving employees the feeling that they experience impact and control over their activities (Boudrias, Morin, & LaJoie,
2014).
Inclusive leaders are also more likely to pay sufficient attention to new opportunities to have better work
processes. By showing openness for constructive dialog on desired objectives, explore new ways to efficiently achieve
those particular objectives, show availability for consulting with employees, emphasize the presence of employees,
show readiness to hear the request of employees and encourage employees to become aware of and participate in the
current and emerging issues (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010). These characteristics of a leader might stimulate
employees’ psychological empowerment (Jung & Sosik, 2002; Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002; Jung, Chow, & Wu,
2003; Masood & Afsar, 2017), which in turn could motivate employees to not only generate new ideas but also
promote and implement useful ideas (Parker & Axtell, 2001).
Moreover, leaders can also be perceived as being a role model by their employees when employees show
IWB. These leaders motivate their employees by demonstrating and promoting IWB (Shore et al., 2011). Inclusive
leadership is about leaders giving their employees the space to make a decision about work activities themselves. As
a result, employees are more likely to perceive high empowerment (Nishii & Mayer, 2009), which might lead to being
motivated to create useful ideas, giving promotion to these ideas to gain acceptance, and executing them to gain
organizational benefits (De Spiegelaere, Gyes, Witte, Niesen, & Hootegem, 2014). Thus, employees who perceive
psychological empowerment, as a consequence of inclusive leadership, are more likely to show involving and
initiating behavior, which leads to increased IWB (Randel et al., 2018). This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1b: Employees’ psychological empowerment partially mediates the relationship between inclusive
leadership and employees’ IWB.
Hypothesis 2a: Inclusive leadership has a positive impact on employees’ psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 2b: Employees’ psychological empowerment has a positive impact on employees’ IWB.
8
The moderating effect on job autonomy on the relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological
empowerment
Job autonomy has been defined as “the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom, independence, and
discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out”
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976, p. 258). The amount of freedom and the idea of affecting a situation significantly impact
how an employee applies them in his or her job activities (Spector, 1986). This study tries to investigate the potential
contextual factor, job autonomy, on the strength of the relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological
empowerment. This contextual factor is taken into account, because for an employee to demonstrate uniqueness, a
certain degree of autonomy in his or her job activities may be needed. Therefore, having a sense of autonomy in one’s
work could be considered necessary (Galletta, Portoghese, & Battistelli, 2011).
Galletta et al. (2011) have argued that having a sense of autonomy is considered to be a psychological need.
This mechanism can be elaborated through the conservation of resources theory (COR). This theory argues that if one
adds a second resource to the existing resource, each resource will gain in strength (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008;
Hobfoll, 2001). The contextual factor job autonomy can be considered as a resource (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). In
addition, inclusive leadership can be considered to be a resource (Schaufelli, 2015). Since employees, working under
an inclusive leadership, will perceive that their perspectives are welcomed and valued, they thereby will experience a
sense of creating impact and having control (Schaufelli, 2015). This line of reasoning is consistent with research
suggesting that experiencing influence of psychological empowerment in the workplace strengthens perceptions of
competence and control (Boudrias, Morin, & LaJoie, 2014). The COR theory argues that resources can strengthen
each other, and this leads into an upward resource gain spiral. This upward gain spiral might lead to positive feelings
amongst the employees (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995). The employees who experience a surplus of resources
are more likely to reinvest them back into the organization, which could manifest into positive organizational outcomes
(Hobfoll, 2001).
Job autonomy allows employees to a certain degree to work without prescribed rules and regulations, which
gives them more freedom in how they perform their job, and this results in positive organizational outcomes
(Ramamoorthy et al., 2005). Therefore, employees in high autonomous jobs have control over the way they perform
their tasks (Troyer, Mueller, & Osinky, 2000). While inclusive leadership enhances employees’ sense of
responsibility toward role obligations (Boudrias, Morin, & LaJoie, 2014), the autonomous job design allows
employees to fulfill the obligations in innovative ways.
Inclusive leadership is considered to be an important antecedent of psychological empowerment (Srivastava,
Bartol, & Locke, 2006), job autonomy might strengthen the effect of inclusive leadership and psychological
empowerment. It might strengthen the relationship by providing the employees a sense of freedom and independence
in their job-related activities (Hackman & Oldham 1976). This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Job autonomy will strengthen the relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological
empowerment. This will happen in a way that if job autonomy is high, compared to low, the effect of inclusive
leadership on psychological empowerment increases.
9
Figure 1.
Conceptual model
3. Methodological framework
3.1 Research design and procedure The aim of this study is to explore how inclusive leadership influences employees’ IWB. To test the hypotheses, an
explanatory approach was applied. The design of this study is quantitative and deductive. The data was collected in a
cross-sectional manner, which means the data was collected at one point in time (Straits & Singleton, 2017). This
study was conducted by a thesis group, which consisted of five students from the master’s program in human resource
studies at Tilburg University. The focus of their study was on exploring the antecedents and outcomes of inclusive
leadership. A questionnaire was developed by the thesis group and the associated supervisors and was approved by
the Ethical Review Board of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences. The data collection took place in
October 2019. The questionnaire was prepared in the software program Qualtrics. Moreover, the students were
responsible for gathering data together (joint data collection) with convenience sampling by using their own network.
Therefore, students’ (virtual) social networks (i.e., LinkedIn and Facebook) were used to gather respondents for the
study. Before respondents were able to fill in the questionnaire, a consent letter was provided with additional
information regarding the questionnaire. In this letter, the purpose of the study was explained and the confidentiality
of the data was assured. In addition, it was allowed that the respondents could stop or withdrawal, or do both, from
the study at any time. All respondents were able to access the questionnaire via a link that was shared on the social
media network platform. For this study, IBM SPSS Statistics 24 was used to analyze the output of the data. The
collective effort of obtaining data yielded a total of 420 respondents. However, not all of the respondents completed
the questionnaire. Respondents who filled in less than 25% of the total questionnaire or did not fill in three of four
variables were excluded from the data file, resulting in 269 respondents.
10
3.2 Sample The scope of this study was the employees from organizations in the Netherlands. The minimum number of
respondents, also called the sample size, was calculated with G*Power. This program was used to calculate the sample
size for the statistical power desired. This is considered a validated program that provides a secure and precise
procedure (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). For this study, the probability was tested at a = 0.05 and a power
ẞ = 0.95. To ensure the power of the data, this study aimed for a sample size N of at least 160 respondents. It was
therefore expected from each student that he or she would collect data from approximately from 40 to 60 respondents.
The sample (N = 269) consisted of 38.1% male and 61.5% female, with an average age of 30.9 years. The majority of
the sample (N = 230) completed their higher vocational education (HBO). The average of the respondents had been
working 3 years and 8 months for their current employer (see Appendix II for more detail). Women are
overrepresented in the sample in comparison to the Dutch working (χ² = 25.752, df = 1, p ≤ .001; “Werkzame
beroepsbevolking,” 2019). This concludes that this sample is more representative of young higher-educated
professionals than of the working population in general (χ² = 318.426, df = 1, p ≤ .001; “Werkzame beroepsbevolking,”
2018).
3.3 Measurement of variables The concepts inclusive leadership, job autonomy, psychological empowerment and IWB were measured by using
scales before any hypotheses testing was conducted, all scales were tested on construct validity and reliability. This
study used both previously developed scales and one scale that was devised by the thesis group in collaboration with
supervisors M. van Engen and A. Veli. Regarding construct validity, a principal component analysis (PCA) was
conducted and varimax rotation was performed for examining internal consistency. As criteria for factor analysis, it
was decided that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure had to exceed .6 (Cramer, 2004) and the scales’ eigenvalues
(1 or higher) were to determine the amount of components. In terms of scale reliability, Cronbach’s ⍺ and Cronbach’s
⍺ if-item-deleted were considered to decide on inclusion of items (Recker, 2012). (Evers, Lucassen, Meijer, & Sijtsma,
2009). A complete overview of the analysis in regards to item loadings can be found in Appendix IV.
Inclusive leadership
First, inclusive leadership was measured by a scale that the thesis group and the supervisors developed. This scale is
based on prior research conducted by Van Engen and Meyers (2014), Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011), and Nishii
(n.d.) and on the review by Veli, Knappert, van Engen and Schalk (2019). This scale consists of 54 items in which 22
items represent the construct of belongingness and 32 items represent the construct of uniqueness. Belongingness and
uniqueness were considered to be the main aspects of inclusive leadership (Randel et al., 2018). The following aspects
were operationalized: supports individuals as group members, ensures justice and equity, shares decision-making, and
encourages diverse contributions, and helps group members fully contribute (Randel et al., 2018). An example
question is “My manager helps others to further develop themselves.”
The scree plot visually demonstrated that there are five components above the scree (see Appendix V for
more detail). The reliability analysis of the developed scale of inclusive leadership showed a Cronbach’s ⍺ of .943.
Four items were deleted to improve internal consistency. Item “My manager takes credit for work I did” was loading
on the fourth factor instead of the first one. The following two items had a negative loading: item “My manager does
11
not value the opinion of others equally” (-.438) and item “My manager thinks of his/her own interests only” (-.484).
Lastly, item “My manager rejects my ideas about my work” had both a loading of .362 on the third factor and .499 on
the fourth factor. Through an additional analysis, it appeared that when deleting four items according to the set rules,
Table 1 shows that the Cronbach’s ⍺ improved to .960. The PCA tested the KMO (.937) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
(p < .05).
Table 1.
Reliability analysis
Cronbach’s ⍺ Cronbach’s ⍺
If item deleted
N of items
Inclusive Leadership .943 .960 50
Deleted: 4
Job autonomy
Job autonomy was measured via the subscale “independence of your work” of the widely used and validated
Questionnaire on the Experience and Evaluation of Work (Van Veldhoven & Meijman, 2008). This subscale consists
of four items that were measured with a seven-point Likert scale. In the scale, 1 represents “never” and 7 represents
“always.” An example question is “I can decide for myself how I execute my work.” The internal consistency of
organizational support in this study was measured by analyzing the Cronbach’s ⍺ of this scale. The Cronbach’s ⍺ for
this scale was considered as high (⍺ = .876). The PCA tested the KMO (.770) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < .05).
The eigenvalues demonstrated one component (2.931), and the scree plot also demonstrated one construct. Afterward,
the reliability analysis demonstrated a satisfactory internal consistency (⍺ = .960) (Evers, Lucassen, Meijer, & Sijtsma,
2009).
Psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment was measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very strongly disagree, 7 = very
strongly agree) developed by Spreitzer (1995) in which 12 items are integrated. An example of a question is “I have
considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job.” The following items in this questionnaire
represent the characteristics of psychological empowerment: self-determination, meaning, competence and impact.
The PCA tested the KMO (.809) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < .05). The eigenvalues demonstrated one
component (5.085), and the scree plot also demonstrated one construct. The scale of psychological empowerment had
a Cronbach’s ⍺ of .943, which means the items have relatively high internal consistency (Evers et al., 2009).
Innovative work behavior
Employee IWB was measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) developed by
De Jong and Den Hartog (2005). The questionnaire consists of nine items. An example of a question is “I always like
to explore new approaches to do my job.” Related to the earlier research of Kanter (1988), the scale of De Jong and
Den Hartog (2005) contains the following innovativeness dimensions: idea exploration, generation, promotion and
12
implementation. The PCA tested the KMO (.927) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < .05). The eigenvalues
demonstrated one component (6.634), and the scree plot also demonstrated one construct. The Cronbach’s ⍺ for this
scale was considered as high internal consistency (⍺ = .942) (Evers et al., 2009).
Control variables
In total, three control variables were included in this study: the educational level, gender and job tenure. These control
variables might be related to job autonomy (Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger Michigan, & Hemingway, 2005). First,
educational level was measured because it is suggested that education provides different points of view towards
innovation. Hence, it would be likely that employees with different educational backgrounds would respond
differently on questions about IWB (Amabile, 1988). The control variable “educational level” consists of six different
levels: 1. Primary education, 2. Lower education (LBO, VMBO), 3. Secondary vocational education (MBO), 4. Higher
vocational academic education (HBO), 5. Academic education (WO), 6. PhD (doctoral). Multiple dummy variables
were computed whereby “higher vocational education” was the reference category. Second, evidence has indicated
that females perceive less job autonomy (Adler, 1993) but are able to share knowledge more frequently (Lin, 2008).
For gender, respondents filled in being a “male” (1) or “female” (2). Multiple dummy variables were computed
whereby “male” was the reference category. Lastly, job tenure was measured because employees who tend to have a
longer tenure are more inclined to share knowledge (Watson & Hewett, 2006). The variable “job tenure” was
computed into a different variable. The following formula was used to calculate the new values: ((“employment in
years” * 12) + “employment in months”) / 12. Job tenure was therefore included as a continuous variable.
3.4 Statistical analysis As a starting point, the data was checked for completeness using data screening. These missing values were replaced
with the series mean (Edwards & Edwards, 2019). The outliers were treated by first examining the descriptive statistics
of the variable by looking at the skewness and kurtosis. Then by using the function’s missing values on the variable
in SPSS and applying the range with the values, a low of 0 to a high of 2.0, the outliers were therefore considered
missing (He, Deng, & Xu, 2005).
The scales were checked for construct validity and reliability. Hereafter, the scale averages were computed. A bivariate
correlation (Pearson’s r) analysis was performed to check for multicollinearity and to detect any spurious effects
between the variables (i.e., dependent, independent and control). To analyze all three theorized hypotheses in SPSS,
this study made use of the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2013). This resulted in simple mediation, simple
moderation and conditional indirect effect analyses using model 4 and model 7 of the PROCESS macro. First, to
analyze Hypothesis 1b and Hypothesis 3, IWB was put in the Outcome Variable (Y) box, inclusive leadership was put
in the Independent Variable (X) box and psychological empowerment was put in the M Variable(s) box using model
4 (Figure 2). Model 4 provided insights into the association between inclusive leadership and IWB and the same
association through psychological empowerment. Next, to analyze the last hypothesis, job autonomy was added into
the Proposed Moderator W box using model 7 (Figure 3). Model 7 provided insights into the conditional indirect
effect at different values of the proposed moderator. In both analyses, the control variables educational level, gender
and job tenure were included in the Covariate(s) box.
13
Figure 2.
Conceptual and statistical diagram model 4 (Hayes, 2013)
Figure 3.
Conceptual and statistical diagram model 7 (Hayes, 2013)
4. Results
To better understand the data under study, insight was gained about the number of participants, means, standard
deviations, minimum scores, maximum scores and correlations among all predictor and control variables used in this
study. The descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix based on a Pearson correlation analysis are presented in Table
2 to test the hypotheses of this study, model 4 and model 7 of the PROCESS macro by Hayes (2013) were used. Model
4 was used to perform a simple mediation analysis, and model 7 was used to test a simple moderation analysis and to
perform a moderated mediation analysis.
4.1 Descriptive statistics This section describes the results of the data gathered in this study. The mean scores, standard deviations, and
Pearson Correlations of the variables are displayed in the correlation matrix. The descriptive statistics in Table
2 indicate a normal distribution for IWB. The same can be suggested for psychological empowerment and job
autonomy. In contrast, inclusive leadership has a slightly right-skewed distribution as the mean, in combination
with the standard deviation, and leans towards the right side of the variety of scores that were given by the
participants under study. The relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment is
14
r = .303**, p < .01. The relationship between psychological empowerment and IWB is r = .575**, p < .01. The relationship between inclusive leadership
and IWB is r = .183**, p < .03. When looking at the other variables within this study, job autonomy correlates significantly in a positive way with both
psychological empowerment (r = .630**, p < .01) and IWB (r = .482**, p < .01). Moreover, if we look at the control variables, almost all educational levels
are negatively correlated with inclusive leadership, job autonomy, psychological empowerment and IWB. However, the level higher vocational education
(HBO) is positively correlated with inclusive leadership (r = .123*, p < .04), job autonomy (r = -.028, p < .01) and IWB (r = -.017, p < .62). Higher educational
vocational education (HBO) seems to be only positively correlated with IWB (r = .123*, p < .05). Moreover, job tenure is positively correlated with
psychological empowerment (r = .123*, p < .04). However, job tenure has a negative relationship with inclusive leadership (r = -.146*, p < .01).
Table 2.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Predictor variables
1. Inclusive leadership 5.07 .806 1
2. Psychological empowerment 5.02 .838 .303** 1
3. Job autonomy 5.08 1.25 .312** .630** 1
4. Innovative work behavior 4.26 1.21 .183** .575** .482** 1
Control variables
5. High school / LBO/ VMBO .03 .159 .044 .019 -.055 -.066 1
6. MBO .12 .324 .047 .008 .079 -.101 -.060 1
7. HBO .86 .353 .123 -.016 -.048 .123* -397** -892** 1
8. Gender .62 .487 -.036 -.020 -.002 -.035 -.015 -0.18 .023 1
9. Job tenure 44.60 68.148 -.146* .123* -.057 -.025 -.052 .043 -.016 -.001 1
Means, standard deviations and Pearson correlation analysis (N = 269)
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, Cronbach’s ⍺ in parentheses. Inclusive leadership, job autonomy, psychological empowerment (min = 1, max = 7), IWB
(min = 1, max = 5); Educational level (1 = High school or pre-vocational education, 2 = Secondary vocational education, 3 = Higher vocational education);
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female); Tenure (months).
15
4.2 Simple mediation analysis Simple mediation analysis was used to estimate and test hypotheses about the paths of causal influence from inclusive
leadership to IWB, one path through the proposed mediator psychological empowerment and a second path
independent of the X -> M -> Y mechanism (Figure 4). To calculate the direct and indirect effect of this simple
mediation, model 4 of the PROCESS macro by Hayes (2013) was used. The results are presented in Table 3. The
results consist of the association between inclusive leadership and IWB (c-path), the effect of inclusive leadership on
IWB (a-path) and the association between inclusive leadership and IWB, through psychological empowerment (c’-
path) (Figure 4).
Figure 4.
Direct and indirect effect of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior.
First, Table 3 shows that the association between inclusive leadership and IWB is non-significant (β = -.0034, t =
-.0396, p = .968). By this analysis, it can be concluded that Hypothesis 1a is rejected. It was also found that inclusive
leadership was positively related to psychological empowerment (β =.3481, t = 4.8616, p = .000). This results into
Hypothesis 2a to be confirmed. Lastly, results indicated that the mediator, psychological empowerment, was positively
associated with IWB (β = .8419, t = 9.9077, p < .000). It can therefore be concluded that Hypothesis 2b is confirmed.
In the present study, the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effects was obtained with 5,000 bootstrap samples
(Hayes, 2013). To illustrate, Table 3 indicates that the c’-path of the association between inclusive leadership and
IWB through the mediator psychological empowerment is positive significant (β = -.29, 95% Conf. Interval: .17
to .43). The confidence intervals surrounding the indirect effect did exceed zero, which indicates that a significant
indirect effect has been found. This means that the results of the mediation analysis did support the mediating role of
psychological empowerment in the relation between inclusive leadership and IWB. By this analysis, it can be
concluded that Hypothesis 1b is confirmed.
16
Table 3.
Mediation analysis (N = 269)
F(5.263)=5.94**, p<.01 Innovative work behavior
Antecedent β SE t P 95% CI R2: .359
Constant -.4163 .6721 -.6194 .5362 [1.7397, .9071]
Inclusive leadership (c’ path) -.0034 .0863 -.0396 .9684 [-.1734, .1665]
Psychological empowerment .8419 .0850 9.9077 .0000 [.6746, 1.0092]
MBO .2595 .4039 .6426 .5210 [.5357, 1.0548]
HBO .6428 .3633 1.7693 .0780 [-.0726, 1.3582]
Gender -.0641 .1220 -.5253 .5998 [-.3044, .1762]
Job tenure -.0017 .0009 -.18031 .0725 [-.0035, .0002]
F(6.262)=19.49**, p<.01 Psychological empowerment
Constant 3.2416 .5537 5.8543 .0000 [2.1513, 4.3318] R2: .120
Inclusive leadership .3481 .0716 4.8616 .0000 [.2071, .4891]
MBO -.0980 .3806 -.2574 .7971 [.2071, .4891]
HBO -.0642 .3667 -.1751 .8611 [-7863, .6579]
Gender -.0128 .0975 -.1315 .8955 [-.2048, .1792]
Job tenure .0020 .0007 2.8998 .0040 [.0007, .0034]
Direct effect X on Y -.0034 .0863 [.1734, .1665]
Total effect X on Y .2931 .0641 [.1767, .4320]
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, Cronbach’s ⍺ in parentheses. Inclusive leadership, job autonomy,
psychological empowerment (min = 1, max = 7), IWB (min = 1, max = 5); Educational level (1 = High school or
pre-vocational education, 2 = Secondary vocational education, 3 = Higher vocational education); Gender (0 = male,
1 = female); Tenure (months).
17
4.3 Simple moderation analysis
Simple moderation analysis was used to estimate and test hypotheses about the paths of casual influence from inclusive
leadership on psychological empowerment, through the proposed moderator job autonomy. To calculate the effect of
this simple moderation, model 7 of the PROCESS macro by Hayes (2013) was used. Multiple regression analyses
were conducted to assess each component of the proposed moderation model. The results consist the interaction effect
of job autonomy on inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment. This model helps to analyze the first part
of the moderated effect (see figure 5).
Figure 5.
Indirect effect of inclusive leadership on psychological empowerment through different values of job autonomy.
First, Table 4 shows that the interaction effect of inclusive leadership and job autonomy on psychological
empowerment is non-significant (β = .0642, t = 1.4125, p = .159). Notably, in Table 5 the confidence intervals
surrounding the indirect effect of psychological empowerment did span zero, which indicates that no significant
indirect effect has been found at job autonomy (β = -.05, 95% Conf. Interval: -.06 to .17), moderate job autonomy (β
= .12, 95% Conf. Interval: .03 to .22) and high levels of job autonomy (β =.18 95% Conf. Interval: .05 to .32). As zero
is present in the confidence intervals, the results show no evidence of conditional indirect effect, which is different
from zero with a 95% confidence interval. Therefore, the association between inclusive leadership and IWB through
psychological empowerment does not significantly increase when an increase in job autonomy occurs. By this
analysis, it can be concluded that Hypothesis 3 is rejected. Lastly, this model significantly explained 45% of the
variance in psychological empowerment.
18
Table 4.
Conditional process analysis: Mediator variable model (N = 269)
F(7.261)= 25.1892, p.000 Psychological empowerment
Antecedent β SE t P 95% CI R2: .452
Constant 5.1731 .1982 26.1047 .0000 [4.7829,5.563]
Inclusive leadership .1477 .0586 2.5205 .0123 [.0323,.2632]
Job autonomy .4187 .0365 11.4601 .0000 [.3467, .4906]
Inclusive leadership X
Job autonomy
.0642 .0454 1.4125 .1590 [-.0253, .1536]
MBO -.3616 .2144 -1.6866 .0929 [-.7837, .0606]
HBO -.2490 .1966 -1.2666 .2064 [-.6362, .1381]
Gender -.0614 .0773 -.2126 .8318 [-.1686, .1357]
Job tenure . 0022 .0006 3.8400 .0002 [.0011, .0034]
Table 5.
Conditional indirect effects of inclusive leadership through psychological empowerment at values of Job autonomy (N = 269)
Model 7 Interaction term
Inclusive leadership * Job autonomy .01 .03
Boot indirect effect β Boot SE 95% CI
Low -1.19 .05 .06 [-.06, .17]
Moderate .00 .12 .04 [.03, .22]
High -1.19 .18 .08 [.05, .32]
Index Boot SE 95% CI
Index of moderation mediation .05 .03 [-.0141, .1291]
Note: 5,000 bootstrap samples
19
4.5 Summary of hypothesis testing
Table 6.
Summary of hypothesis testing
# Hypothesis Status
H1a Inclusive leadership has a positive impact on employees’ innovative work behavior. Rejected
H1b Employees’ psychological empowerment partially mediates the relationship between
inclusive leadership and employees’ innovative work behavior.
Confirmed
H2a Inclusive leadership has a positive impact on employees’ psychological empowerment. Confirmed
H2b Employees’ psychological empowerment has a positive impact on employees’ innovative
work behavior.
Confirmed
H3 Job autonomy will strengthen or weaken the relationship between inclusive leadership and
psychological empowerment. This will happen in a way that if job autonomy is high,
compared to low, the effect of inclusive leadership on psychological empowerment
increases.
Rejected
5. Discussions
5.1 Discussion This study investigated whether inclusive leadership affects psychological empowerment and if this would lead to
IWB, and to what extent job autonomy strengthened the relationship of inclusive leadership on psychological
empowerment. The direct relationship between inclusive leadership and IWB has not been confirmed, this study
showed the importance of psychological empowerment as intervening mechanism between inclusive leadership and
IWB. Findings support the assumption for an indirect relationship, in which characteristics as facilitating
belongingness and valuing uniqueness towards subordinates, makes an inclusive leader appreciating the input of their
employees when decisions should be made. In this process, employees were psychological empowered to participate
and having their voices be heard (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).
Moreover, the relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment were found to have
a positive affection. By having inclusive leaders, employees will perceive that their perspectives are welcome and
valued and thereby will experience a sense of creating an impact and having control (Yin, 2013). This line of reasoning
is consistent with the research suggesting that experiencing influence of empowerment in the workplace strengthens
perceptions of competence and control (Boudrias, Morin, & LaJoie, 2014). Thus, employees who are psychologically
empowered by their leaders tend to feel that employees make an impact and have control over employees’ activities
(Spreitzer, 1995).
The relationship between psychological empowerment and IWB were found to have a positive relationship.
Employees who experience psychological empowerment have been found to engage in behaviors that reflect
involvement and initiative, which ultimately leads to improving their IWB (Frazier & Fainshmidt, 2012). Past research
20
has investigated whether innovation survives in an organization where employees have autonomy, control and a sense
of ownership in the daily operations of their work (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). In addition,
Javed et al. (2017) explained creating innovative ideas is not a common daily task. An employee has to step beyond
his or her day-to-day activities, in the sense of psychological empowerment and the belief allocated by the support
and resources to implement such ideas.
This study examined the potential contextual influence of job autonomy, because of the possible influence
on the effectiveness of the leadership. Within this study, it was found that job autonomy does not have an impact on
the relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment. This effect can be explained through
the common source bias, which refers to the possibility of inaccuracies when other studies are combined and compared
(Meier & Toole, 2012). In this study, psychological empowerment is a multifaceted concept that includes four sets of
cognitions. In this matter, the cognition self-determination which refers to the control and autonomy, might overlap
with job autonomy. Moreover, previous research found that job autonomy have argued that having a sense of
autonomy is considered to be a psychological need. This mechanism can be elaborated through the conservation of
resources theory (COR) (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008; Hobfoll, 2001). This effect can be explained through the
Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT) which explains tensions between the human needs for, on the one hand,
validation and similarity to others (belongingness), and on the other hand a balanced need for uniqueness (Brewer,
1991). If one of both needs is not showing, this might result into imbalance of both needs (Correll & Park, 2005).
Therefore, the level of inclusion can vary, based on the context of that an individual is situated in (Shore et al., 2011).
Outcomes of this study indicate that employees who are working in a job on a higher educational level are
prone to exhibit more IWB. However, assuming that only the level of education of the job is certain may be considered
as limited. Certain aspects of employees’ job design, such as the requirements of the job or the opportunity to exhibit
IWB, might be pivotal for the relationship between education level of the job and IWB.
5.2 Limitations Certain decisions and shortcomings have led to a number of limitations. The first limitation of this study was how the
data was collected. The data was collected via LinkedIn from individuals who were willing to fill in the questionnaire.
The users of this social media platform are mostly highly educated. A significantly large part of the sample revealed
on average a higher education level compared to what is the average standard in the Dutch labor force. This makes it
inconvenient to conclude the results for the lower educational level population. In order to overcome this potential
sampling error, stratified random sampling can be applied. Whereby from every organization a list with demographic
information of the employees is provided and participants are selected per strata (Rossi, Wright & Anderson, 2013).
This method enables a better reflection of the demographic variances of the job in the sample.
The second limitation occurred due to the used research design. This study used a cross- sectional research
design, whereby data was collected at one period of time (Straits & Singleton, 2017). Outcomes of this study show
therefore only the state of mind or perception of the respondent at the moment of filling in the questionnaire. Because
this research used the data based on employee perceptions, including changes in the perceptions with regard to
inclusive leadership, psychological empowerment, and job autonomy could lead to different research outcomes.
21
Therefore, future researcher are advised to adopt a longitudinal research design, in order to examine the causality
(Edwards & Edwards, 2019).
Furthermore, it was found that job autonomy might overlap with psychological empowerment. Both of these
variables have a strong correlation, which indicates multicollinearity (Edwards & Edwards, 2019). Future researches
can analyze both job autonomy and psychological empowerment simultaneously in the factor analysis to determine
whether there is any multicollinearity (Cramer, 2004). If this is the case, based on the theoretical reasoning, there can
be decided whether job autonomy can be considered as a moderator in the future study.
5.3 Practical implications and future research Findings of this study result in several practical implications. This study showed the importance of inclusive leadership
in organizations to influence employees’ IWB. Organizations may potentially influence IWB by focusing on having
inclusive leaders within their organization. Inclusive leaders are able to increase employee’s psychological
empowerment, this in turn results into employees’ IWB. This results into positive organizational outcomes as viability
and growth. It may be desirable for organizations to obtain managers who possess certain capabilities and inclusive
leadership characteristics as facilitating belongingness and valuing uniqueness. Moreover, this study indicates the
relevance of employees’ psychological empowerment in order to enhance IWB. Therefore it raises the question on
how psychological empowerment can be influenced by organizations. Inclusive leadership is considered to be an
important factor which has the ability to influence employees’ psychological empowerment. Thus, organizations and
managers should be conscious of their potential to influence employees’ psychological empowerment and employees’
work environment.
This study measured the variables inclusive leadership, psychological empowerment, and job autonomy in
order to predict IWB. Although, job autonomy did not significantly contributes to the hypothesized model. Suggested
is that individuals try to obtain an optimal balance between both belongingness and uniqueness (Shore et al., 2011).
The reason why job autonomy pushes the effect on the relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological
empowerment away and which elements (belongingness and uniqueness) are experienced by employees, should be
further examined.
5.4 Conclusion Thus, it can be concluded that IWB is considered to be an important factor for the survival of organizations, and so
increasing this employees’ behavior is important. Based on the findings, this study adds to a contribution of knowledge
about the relationship between leadership and innovation and the role of psychological empowering employees. It
provides guidelines for organizations to increase IWB which assists organizations to manage the more dynamic and
complex environments they operate in.
22
References
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,
10(1), 123–167. Retrieved from
http://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Group_Performance/Amabile_A_Model_of_Creativ
ityOrg.Beh_v10_pp123-167.pdf
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to ‘the social psychology of creativity’. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13594320701514728
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for
creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184. Retrieved from
https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/256995
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009). Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics
of voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and Silence in Organizations, (pp. 175–
201). UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of managerial
psychology, 22(3), 309-328. Retrieved from
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02683940710733115./full/html#loginreload
Boudrias, J., Morin, A. & Lajoie, D. (2014). Directionality of the associations between psychological empowerment
and behavioural involvement: A longitudinal autoregressive cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 87(3), 437-463. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joop.12056
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and social
Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167291175001
Brewer, M. B. (2011). Optimal distinctiveness theory: Its history and development. Handbook of theories of social
psychology, 2, 81.
Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Gefen, D. (2010). The importance of innovation leadership in cultivating strategic fit
and enhancing firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 339–349. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984310000494
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks
in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250-260. Retrieved
from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654
Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H., & Park, B. I. (2015). Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Mediating roles of
affective organizational commitment and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,
23
12(6), 931–943. Retrieved from
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/2015/00000043/00000006/art00006
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 13(3), 471-482. Retrieved from https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMR.1988.4306983
Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 9(4), 341-359. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327957pspr0904_4
De Jong, J. P. J. (2006). Individual innovation: The connection between leadership and employees’ innovative work
behavior. Retrieved from http://www.entrepreneurship-sme.eu/pdf-ez/R200604.pdf.
De Jong, P.J., & Den Hartog, D. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour. European Journal
of Innovation Management. 10(1), 41-64. Retrieved from
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/14601060710720546/full/html
De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 19(1), 23–36. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-
8691.2010.00547.x
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., De Witte, H., Niesen, W., & Van Hootegem, G. (2014). On the relation of job
insecurity, job autonomy, innovative work behaviour and the mediating effect of work engagement. Creativity and
innovation management, 23(3), 318-330. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/caim.12079
Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in organizational behavior
research. Journal of business and Psychology, 17(2), 245-260. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1019637632584
Dorenbosch, L., Engen, M. L. V., & Verhagen, M. (2005). On‐the‐job innovation: The impact of job design and
human resource management through production ownership. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 129–
141. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1476-8691.2005.00333.x
Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents
and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of
management, 38(6), 1715-1759. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0149206311415280
Edmondson, A. C., Kramer, R. M., & Cook, K. S. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations:
A group level lens. Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches, 12, 239–272.
Edwards, M. R., & Edwards, K. (2019). Predictive HR analytics: Mastering the HR metric. Kogan Page Publishers.
Evers, A. V. A. M., Lucassen, W., Meijer, R., & Sijtsma, K. (2009). COTAN-beoordelingssysteem voor de kwaliteit
van tests (geheel herziene versie). Amsterdam: NIP.
24
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for
correlation and regression analyses. Behavior research methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03193146
Frazier, M. L., & Fainshmidt, S. (2012). Voice climate, work outcomes, and the mediating role of psychological
empowerment: a multilevel examination. Group & Organization Management, 37(6), 691-715. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1059601112463960
Galletta, M., Portoghese, I., & Battistelli, A. (2011). Intrinsic motivation, job autonomy and turnover intention in the
Italian healthcare: The mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of Management research, 3(2), 1-19.
Retrieved from https://iris.unica.it/handle/11584/98231#.XjBjRGhKiUk
Groysberg, B., & Connolly, K. (2013). Great leaders who make the mix work. Harvard Business Review, 91, 68–76.
Retrieved from https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=45425
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal
of business research, 62(4), 461-473. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296308000325
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational
behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250-279.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting
job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22(3), 242-256. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02678370802383962
He, Z., Deng, S., & Xu, X. (2005). An optimization model for outlier detection in categorical data. International
Conference on Intelligent Computing (pp. 400-409). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/11538059_42
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested‐self in the stress process: advancing
conservation of resources theory. Applied psychology, 50(3), 337- 421. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader–follower relationship. New York: Routledge.
Retrieved from
https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1044&co
ntext=tpr
Hollander, E. P. (2012). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. New York: Routledge.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/096317900167038
25
Janssen, O., & Van Yperen, N. W. (2004). Employees’ goal orientations, the quality of leader-member exchange,
and the outcomes of job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 368–384.
Retrieved from https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/20159587
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment,
cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33(3), 313–336.
Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10496402033003002
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational
innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4-5), 525–544. Retrieved
from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104898430300050X
Kanter, R. M. (1988). Three tiers for innovation research. Communication Research, 15(5), 509–523. Retrieved
from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009365088015005001
Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performing spirals: A multilevel
perspective. Academy of management review, 20(3), 645-678. Retrieved from
https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080333
Masood, M., & Afsar, B. (2017). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior among nursing staff.
Nursing Inquiry, 24(4), 1–4. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nin.12188
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2012). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common
source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429-456.
Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/23/2/429/1002311
Morgeson, F.P., Delaney-Klinger, K. & Hemingway, M.A. (2005). The Importance of Job Autonomy, Cognitive
Ability, and Job-Related Skill for Predicting Role Breadth and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology
Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 2005, Vol. 90, No. 2, 399 – 406. Retrieved from
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0021-9010.90.2.399
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional
status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
27(7), 941–966. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/job.413
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The
moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(6), 1412. Retrieved from https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0017190
Parker, S. K., & Axtell, C. M. (2001). Seeing another viewpoint: Antecedents and outcomes of employee perspective
taking. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1085–1100. Retrieved from
https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/3069390
26
Parry, K., & Proctor-Thomson, S. (2002). Leadership, culture and performance: The case of the New Zealand public
sector. Journal of Change Management, 3(4), 376–399. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/714023843
Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D. N. D., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership
and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2‐3), 259–278. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/job.627
Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and practice. Journal of
Business Ethics, 54(2), 129–147. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-004-9465-8
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). The road to empowerment: Seven questions every leader should
consider. Organizational dynamics, 26(2), 37-49. Retrieved from
https://unitar.org/hiroshima/sites/unitar.org.hiroshima/files/6_AF08_WSI%26II_The_Road_to_Empowerment.pdf
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of innovative work behaviour:
Development and test of an integrated model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 142–150. Retrieved
from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00334.x
Randel, A. E., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B., & Shore, L. (2016). Leader inclusiveness, psychological
diversity climate, and helping behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), 216-234. Retrieved from
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JMP-04-2013-0123/full/html
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018).
Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human
Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190-203. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053482217300517
Recker, J. (2012). Scientific research in information systems: a beginner's guide. Springer Science & Business
Media.
Reuvers, M., Van Engen, M. L., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Wilson‐Evered, E. (2008). Transformational leadership and
innovative work behaviour: Exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creativity and Innovation Management,
17(3), 227–244. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00487.x
Rossi, P. H., Wright, J. D., & Anderson, A. B. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of survey research. Academic Press.
Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). Engaging leadership in the job demands-resources model. Career Development
International, 20(5), 446-463. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/CDI-02-2015-
0025/full/html
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Ehrhart, & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in
work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262–1289. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0149206310385943
27
Smith, G. P. (2002). The new leader: bringing creativity and innovation to the workplace, Chart Your Course.
Georgia: Conyers.
Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness, the Human Pursuit of Difference. New York: Plenum Press.
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and
participation at work. Human relations, 39(11), 1005-1016. Retrieved from
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JWL-06-2016-0055/full/html
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995) Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace: Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation.
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 5 (Oct., 1995), pp. 1442-1465. Retrieved from
https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/256865
Srivastava, A, Bartol, K.M. & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: effects on
knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal 2006, Vol. 49, No. 6, 1239–1251.
Retrieved from https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMJ.2006.23478718
Straits, B. C., & Singleton, R. (2017). Social Research: Approaches and Fundamentals. Oxford University Press.
Troyer, L., Mueller, C. W., & Osinsky, P. I. (2000). Who's the boss? A role-theoretic analysis of customer
work. Work and occupations, 27(3), 406-427. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0730888400027003007
Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a
multidimensional measure. Journal of business and psychology, 26(3), 249-267. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1
Van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. F. (1994). Vragenlijst Beleving en Beoordeling van de Arbeid [Questionnaire
experience and evaluation of work]. Amsterdam: NIA. Retrieved from
https://repository.tudelft.nl/view/tno/uuid:d231f2f3-8574-4e77-862b-4abe1ebd4df5
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–
607. Retrieved from https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Goldman, B. M. (2011). How leader–member exchange influences effective
work behaviors: Social exchange and internal–external efficacy perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 739–
770. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01224.x
Watson, S., & Hewett, K. (2006). A Multi‐Theoretical Model of Knowledge Transfer in Organizations:
Determinants of Knowledge Contribution and Knowledge Reuse. Journal of management studies, 43(2), 141-173.
Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00586.x
Werkzame beroepsbevolking, beroep. (2018). Retrieved from: https://statline.cbs.nl/
Werkzame beroepsbevolking, beroep. (2019). Retrieved from: https://statline.cbs.nl/
28
Yin, L. W. (2013). Inclusive leadership and employee voice: Mediating roles of psychological safety and leader-
member exchange. Unpublished undergraduate thesis). Hong Kong Baptist University. Retrieved from
http://libproject.hkbu.edu.hk/trsimage/hp/10007490.pdf
Yukl, G. A. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Pearson Education India.
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85. Retrieved from https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amp.2012.0088
29
APPENDIX I – Consent letter
Dear reader,
We are currently completing our Masters in Human Resource Studies at Tilburg University. For our master thesis
we are looking for people who want to help us with filling out an online questionnaire. In a group of 5 students,
we are conducting a study about ‘inclusive leadership’ from the employees’ perspective. Inclusion in
organizations is an important topic for many organizations. One of the important ways to ensure inclusion might
be the managers’ leadership style. Inclusive leaders are people-oriented leaders and able to recognize and bring
out talents and motivations of their teams. We try to understand how inclusive leadership affects employees’
workplace experiences.
Because we are developing a new way of measuring inclusive leadership, some questions in the survey might feel
very similar. This is so we can select the best questions from a large pool of questions.
Filling out the survey will take about 15 minutes. The duration of this study is from the 10th of October 2019 until
the 31st of October 2019.
Information on your data privacy
● Your participation in the survey is voluntary. You have the opportunity to stop the survey any time and to withdraw your consent to participate in the study.
● The survey will be distributed via the online survey tool Qualtrics. Your participation will be anonymous. Only the researchers will have access to the raw data for evaluation purposes. The raw data will be deleted after the completion of the project, but not later than 1/1/2038.
● Approval to conduct this study is given by the Ethical Review Board (ERB). If you have any remarks or complaints regarding this research, you may also contact the Ethics Review Board of Tilburg School of
Social and Behavioral Sciences.● For questions about the study or the survey, please contact us.
Whom to contact in case of questions or additional information:
Annemieke Verschuren
Lonneke van Gils
Deqa Warsame
Wilny Octavius
Stefan van der Meer
o I agree with the information given above
o I do not agree with the information given above
30
APPENDIX II – Questionnaire
Control variables
What is your gender?
o Female
o Female
o Prefer not to say
I identify myself as:
o Dutch
o French
o American
o Turkish
o Swedish
o Spanish
o Other, namely ________
What is your age in years?
What is your highest completed level of education?
o Lower than highschool
o Highschool or pre-vocational
education (LBO, VMBO)
o Secondary vocational education
(MBO)
o Master’s degree (WO)
o Higher vocational education (HBO)
o PhD (Doctorate)
How long have you been working for your current employer (in years and months)?
o ________years
o __________ months
31
In which sector are you working?
o Healthcare
o Transport & logistics
o Science
o Agricultural
o Education
o Business/financial services
o Industrial
o Consultancy
o Media
o Construction
o Legal
o Art/culture
o IT
o Food
o Trade
o Recreation
o Government
o Catering
o Other, namely ________________
Thank you for filling out the previous questions. The next section will be about whether you
experience that your manager has an inclusive leadership style or not.
Inclusive leadership
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6
= Agree, 7 = Strongly agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
1. If my manager notices bias attitudes, he/she actively addresses it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. My manager shows concern with fairness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. My manager shows integrity and advanced moral reasoning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. My manager encourages others to take initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32
5. My manager helps me to further develop myself in my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. My manager takes credit for work I did 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. My manager judges ideas of others based on their quality
and not on who expressed them 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. My manager helps others to further develop themselves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. My manager enjoys the success of her/his team members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. My manager ensures equity within the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. My manager encourages others to come up with new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. My manager is aware of his/her own behavior that impacts
others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. My manager listens to what I have to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. My manager encourages me to ask questions about my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. My manager shows respect and recognition for others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. My manager provides training and development to decrease
bias attitudes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. My manager treats me with respect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. My manager provides me with opportunities to demonstrate
my leadership skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. My manager provides me with constructive suggestions to
improve my job performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. My manager ensures that my rewards are in line with my efforts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. My manager applies rules consistently to all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. My manager supports me to engage in the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. My manager does not value the opinion of others equally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. My manager creates opportunities for me to develop and train
my skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. My manager is committed to continuously reflect on
his/her own behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. My manager shows appreciation for different voices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. My manager encourages my unique contributions
in the workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33
28. My manager thinks of his/her own interests only 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29. My manager gives others personal authority to take
decisions which make work easier for them 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30. My manager asks for my ideas about my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
31. My manager asks for the input of team members
that belong to other professional groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32. My manager encourages participative behaviors
within the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33. My manager encourages others to use their talents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34. My manager encourages me to use my talents
to the fullest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35. My manager encourages others to offer ideas on
how to improve work operations outside of their own areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36. My manager tries to learn from criticism when other people
express it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37. My manager empowers others to make work-related
decisions on their own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
38. My manager focuses on reaching mutual relationships
among team members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
39. My manager appreciates the differences that people
bring to the workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
40. My manager shows appreciation for the unique
contributions of others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
41. My manager gives me recognition for my work
contributions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42. My manager makes sure everyone’s opinion matters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43. My manager is open about his/her limitations
and weaknesses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
44. My manager rejects my ideas about my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
45. My manager ensures justice within the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34
46. My manager values others for who they are as people,
not just for the jobs that they fill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
47. My manager is available for professional questions
I would like to consult with him/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
48. My manager makes sure that everyone feels part of the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
49. My manager focuses on the team as a whole rather than
on individuals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
50. My manager helps me to fully contribute to my work
environment in a way I like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
51. My manager ensures that team members collaborate with
each other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
52. My manager motivates me to do my best during job-related
activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
53. My manager actively seeks for input of others outside
his/her subgroup (small circle of close co-workers) when decisions
have to be made 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
54. My manager encourages open and frank communication 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thank you for filling out the previous questions about whether you experience that your manager
has an inclusive leadership style. The next section will be about whether you feel included within
the team by your manager or not.
Perception of inclusive leadership
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5= Strongly agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
1. My manager gives me the feeling that I am part of this team 1 2 3 4 5
2. My manager treats me as an insider 1 2 3 4 5
3. My manager cares about me 1 2 3 4 5
4. My manager gives me the feeling that I fit in the team 1 2 3 4 5
5. My manager encourages me to express my authentic self 1 2 3 4 5
6. My manager encourages me to present myself the way I am 1 2 3 4 5
35
Thank you for filling out the previous questions about whether you feel included within the team
by your manager or not. The next section will be whether you feel committed to your
organization.
Affective organizational commitment
1 = Totally disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5= Strongly agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
1. I would be very happy to spend the rest
of my career with this organization 1 2 3 4 5
2. I enjoy talking about my organization with people outside it 1 2 3 4 5
3. I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own 1 2 3 4 5
4. I think that I could easily become as attached to another
organization as I am to this one 1 2 3 4 5
5. I do not feel like 'part of the family' at my organization 1 2 3 4 5
6. I do not feel 'emotionally attached' to this organization 1 2 3 4 5
7. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning
to me 1 2 3 4 5
8. I do not feel a 'strong' sense of belonging to my organization 1 2 3 4 5
Thank you for filling out the previous questions about whether you feel committed to your
organization. The next section will be about whether you feel empowered on a psychological
level by your manager.
Psychological empowerment
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5= Strongly agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
1. The work I do is very important for me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. My job activities are personally meaningful to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. The work I do is meaningful to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I am confident about my ability to do my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform
my work activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36
6. I have mastered the skills necessary for my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. I have significant autonomy in determing how I do my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I can decide on my own how to get about doing my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. I have considerable opportunity for independence
and freedom in how I do my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. My impact on what happens in my workplace is large 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. I have a great deal of control over what happens
in my workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. I have significant influence over what happens
in my workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thank you for filling out the previous questions about whether you feel empowered on a
psychological level by your manager. The next section will be about whether you feel safe to
take interpersonal risks at your workplace.
Psychological safety
1 = Very strongly disagree, 2 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Neutral, 5= Agree, 6= Strongly agree, 7= Very
strongly agree
To what extent do the following statements apply to you?
1. If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Members of this team are able to bring up problems
and tough issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. People on this team sometimes reject others for being
different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. It is safe to take a risk on this team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. No one on this team would deliberately act in a way
that undermines my efforts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. When working with members of this team, my unique skills
and talents are valued and utilized 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37
Thank you for filling out the previous questions about whether you feel safe to take interpersonal
risks at your workplace. The next section will be about whether you have a certain amount of
autonomy in carrying out your work.
Job autonomy
1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Regularly, 5= Often, 6= Almost always, 7=Always
To what extent do the following questions apply to you?
1. Do you have freedom in executing your tasks? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Can you decide for yourself how to execute your work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Can you decide for yourself how much time you dedicate
to a certain task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Can you arrange your own work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thank you for filling out the previous questions about whether you have a certain amount of
autonomy in carrying out your work. The next question will be about whether you have any
intention to leave your organization.
Turnover intentions
1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Regularly, 5= Often, 6= Almost always, 7=Always
To what extent does the following question apply to you?
How often do you think about leaving your current employer? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thank you for filling out the previous question about the intention of leaving your organization.
The next section will be about showing innovative behavior at work.
Innovative work behavior
1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Regularly, 5= Often, 6= Almost always, 7=Always
Please indicate to what extent the following statements are applicable for you.
1. I pay attention to issues that are not part of my daily work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I wonder how things can be improved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I search out new working methods, techniques or instruments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I generate original solutions for problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
38
5. I find new approaches to execute tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. I make important organizational members enthusiastic
for innovative ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. I attempt to convince people to support an innovative idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. I introduce innovative ideas into work practices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. I contribute to the implementation of new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. I put effort in the development of new things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thank you for filling out the previous questions about showing innovative behavior at work. The
next section will be about whether you experience a certain amount of support from your
organization.
Perceived organizational support
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Slightly disagree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Neutral, 5= Slightly agree, 6= Agree 7= Strongly
agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
1. The organization appreciates my extra efforts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. The organization takes pride in my accomplishment at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. The organization cares about my opinions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. The organization strongly considers my goals and values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. The organization really cares about my well-being 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Thank you for filling out the previous questions about whether you experience a certain amount
of support from your organization. The next (and last) section will be about whether your
organization provides you with opportunities to improve your effectiveness.
HRM practices
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Slightly disagree, 3 = Disagree, 4 = Neutral, 5= Slightly agree, 6= Agree 7= Strongly
agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
1. The promotion process used in the organization is fair to me 1 2 3 4 5
2. I have a clear career path within the organization 1 2 3 4 5
39
3. I have very little future within this organization 1 2 3 4 5
4. I am provided with sufficient opportunities for training and 1 2 3 4 5
development in this organization 1 2 3 4 5
5. Not much priority is placed on training me in this organization 1 2 3 4 5
6. Much money is spent in my organization on training me 1 2 3 4 5
7. Extensive training programs are offered to me in this organization 1 2 3 4 5
40
APPENDIX III – Sample’s demographics
Respondent’s demographics
41
APPENDIX IV – Component matrix
Inclusive leadership
Item Statement Loading
1 My manager helps others to further develop themselves .795
2 My manager makes sure everyone’s opinion matters .784
3 My manager shows appreciation for the unique contributions of others .783
4 My manager encourages others to use their talents .777
5 My manager encourages others to come up with new ideas .768
6 My manager encourages others to take initiative .768
7 My manager helps me to further develop myself in my job .766
8 My manager encourages me to use my talents to the fullest .763
9 If my manager notices bias attitudes, he/ she actively addresses it .631
10 My manager shows concern with fairness .589
11 My manager integrity and advanced moral reasoning .645
12 My manager encourages others to take initiative .711
13 My manager helps me to further develop myself in my job .784
14 My manager judges ideas of others based on their quality, and not based on who expressed them .602
15 My manager helps others to further develop themselves .758
16 My manager enjoys success of her/his team members .625
17 My manager ensures equity within the team .684
18 My manager encourages others to come up with new ideas .664
19 My manager is aware of his/ her own behavior that impact others .691
20 My manager listens to what I have to say .531
21 My manager encourages me to ask questions about my work .491
22 My manager shows respect and recognition for others .615
23 My manager provides training and development to decrease bias attitudes .579
24 My manager treats me with respect .615
25 My manager provides me with the opportunities to demonstrate my skills .555
26 My manager provides me with constructive suggestions to improve my job performance .506
27 My manager ensures that my rewards are in line with my efforts .499
28 My manager applies rules consistently to all .644
42
29 My manager supports me to engage in the team .652
30 My manager creates opportunities for me to develop and train my skills .501
31 My manager is committed to continuously reflect on his/her own behaviors .691
32 My manager shows appreciation for different voices .601
33 My manager encourage my unique contributions in the workplace .663
34 My manager gives others personal authority to take decisions which make work easier for them .529
35 My manager asks for my ideas about my work .604
36 My manager asks for the input of team members that belong to other professional groups .611
37 My manager encourages participative behaviors within the team .715
38 My manager encourages others to use their talents .696
39 My manager encourages me to use my talents to the fullest .750
40
My manager encourages others to offer ideas on how to improve work operations outside of their
own areas .677
41 My manager tries to learn from criticism when other people express it .675
42 My manager empowers others to make work related decisions on their own .666
43 My manager focuses on reaching mutual relationships among team members .630
44 My manager appreciates the differences that people bring to the workplace .701
45 My manager shows appreciation for unique contributions of others .735
46 My manager gives me recognition for my work contributions .632
47 My manager makes sure everyone’s opinion matters .690
48 My manager is open about his/her limitations and weaknesses .625
49 My manager ensures justice within the team .629
50 My manager values others for who they are as people, not just for the jobs they fill .660
51 My manager is available for professional questions I would consult him/her .535
52 My manager makes sure that everyone feels part of the team .728
53 My manager helps me to fully contribute to my work environment in a way I like .709
54 My manager ensures that team members collaborate with each other .735
55 My manager motivates me to do my best during job related activities .695
56
My manager actively seeks input of others outside his/ her subgroup (small circle of close co-
workers) when decisions have to be made .543
57 My manager encourages open and frank communication .695
43
Job autonomy Item Statement Loading
1 Can you decide for yourself how to execute your work? .818
2 Do you have freedom in executing your tasks? .787
3 Can you arrange your own work? .753
4 Can you decide for yourself how much time you dedicate to a certain task? .574
Psychological empowerment Item Statement Loading
1 The work I do is very important for me .886
2 My job activities are personally meaningful to me .911
3 I am confident about my ability to do my job .843
4 I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities .874
5 I have mastered the skills necessary for my job .678
6 I have significant autonomy in determing how to get about doing my work .788
7 I can decide on my own how to get about doing my work .864
8 I have considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do my job .818
9 My impact on what happens in my workplace is large .774
10 I have a great deal of control over what happens in my workplace .901
11 I have significant influence over what happens in my workplace .836
Innovative work behavior
Item Statement Loading
1 I pay attention to issues that are not part of my daily work .298
2 I wonder how things can be improved .561
3 I search out new working methods, techniques or instruments .645
4 I generate original solutions for problems .700
5 I find new approaches to execute tasks .775
6 I make important organizational members for enthusiastic for innovative ideas .703
7 I attempt to convince people to support an innovative idea .740
8 I introduce innovative ideas into work practices .761
9 I contribute to the implementation of new ideas .728
10 I put effort in the development of new things .722
44
APPENDIX V – Scree plot of Inclusive Leadership