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., &amp; 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