the influence of inclusive leadership on innovative work
TRANSCRIPT
IRP Master Thesis Human Resource Studies
The influence of Inclusive Leadership on Innovative
Work Behavior
Exploring the mediating role of Psychological Empowerment and the
moderating role of HRM practices
Student: A.S.R. Verschuren
SNR: 1270672
Supervisors: dr. M. van Engen & A.A. Veli
Second reader: prof. dr. Schalk
May 2019 – December 2019
Tilburg University – School of Social and Behavioral Sciences
2
Abstract
The role of innovative behavior in enhancing competitive advantages for organizations is
becoming increasingly important. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the proposed
positive relationship between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior through
psychological empowerment. In addition, the interfering role of training and development
HRM practices in the relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological
empowerment is investigated in order to find argumentation for the positive, moderating effect
of these practices. The research questions were: to what extent does inclusive leadership affect
innovative work behavior and is this relationship mediated by psychological empowerment?
And to what extent do HRM practices affect the mediation relationship between inclusive
leadership and psychological empowerment?
In order to investigate the research questions, a quantitative cross-sectional study was
conducted amongst employees with a manager and with different nationalities and
organizational sectors. Eventually, with using convenience sampling, 238 questionnaires were
used for analyses. The results found that inclusive leadership was positively related to
innovative work behavior through the mediating effect of psychological empowerment. In
addition, the moderation effect of HRM practices was found to be significant. Yet, the direct
effect between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior did not turn out to be
significant in this research. As HRM practices in this research are focused on training and
development, further research is needed to investigate the effect of other kind of HRM
practices as moderator or to investigate other mediators than psychological empowerment
between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior.
Key words: inclusive leadership, psychological empowerment, innovative work behavior, HRM
practices, innovation, diversity
3
1. Introduction
In today’s turbulent environment, innovation has gained strategic priority, because it
helps organizations to perform well when they have to align to technological developments and
changing business models (Bozic & Ozretic-Dosen, 2015; Wan, Williamson, & Yin, 2015;
Sanchez-Famoso, Maseda, & Iturralde, in press). As Katz already stated in 1964, organizations
become more innovative by taking advantage on their employees’ capacity to innovate.
Economies are becoming increasingly knowledge-based, which makes it even more important
that organizations use the unique qualities of their employees in order to innovate (Mustapha &
Abdullah, 2004). Innovative work behavior can be referred to as employees using their ability
to initiate ideas as a fundament of improving products, facilities and work procedures and
processes within an individual role, group or organization (De Jong, 2006). Many studies show
that innovation amongst employees enhances success of organizations (Van de Ven, 1986;
Amabile, 1988; Axtell et al., 2000; Smith, 2002; Unsworth and Parker, 2003). As employee
innovative work behavior is argued to be the basis of high performance organizations, (Carmeli
& Weisberg, 2006), and “the study of what motivates or enables individual innovative
behavior is critical” (Scott & Bruce, 1994, p. 580), the present study is interested in leadership
behaviors that affect employee innovative work behavior.
Recent meta-analyses (van Dijk, van Engen & van Knippenberg, 2012; Joshi & Roh,
2009) show that diversity can be a crucial indicator of performance, mainly when focusing on
innovation. According to Bryan (1999) diversity entails the inclusion of all different members
of groups at all levels of the organization. However, the diversity – innovation relationship is
dependent on how diversity is managed. Van Dijk, Meyer, van Engen and Loyd (2017) argue
that the extent to which a leader is inclusive might be a crucial aspect. Although research and
theory about promoting employee experiences of work group inclusion is still scarce (Nishii &
Mayer, 2009), Randel et al. (2018) conceptualized a leadership style that in theory should foster
diverse work groups to function effectively. This leadership style is named inclusive leadership.
Inclusive leadership refers to facilitating belongingness and uniqueness to members of a group,
while making contributions to group processes and important organizational outcomes, such as
individual performance, creativity and lower turnover rates of these group members (Randel et
al., 2018). Belongingness refers to the perceptions of people regards belonging to a group,
while remaining their feelings of originality, which refers to uniqueness (Randel et al., 2018).
4
An explanation for the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee
innovative work behavior, is that inclusive leaders empower their subordinates. According to
Spreitzer (1995), psychological empowerment is about perceived control in the work
environment. When employees perceive more psychological empowerment, this enlarges the
sense of personal control and drives employees to participate in work and share their opinions
on innovations (Choi, Tran, & Park, 2015).. Randel et al., (2018) conceptualized the effect of
inclusive leadership on psychological empowerment and members’ behavioral outcomes. The
theoretical model of Randel et al. (2018) will be used in this research, because it seems to
propose a modern and relevant understanding of the definition and consequences of inclusive
leadership.
In addition to the relationship between inclusive leadership, psychological
empowerment and employee innovative work behavior, the present study explores
organizational factors that might affect this relationship. In the present study, the focus is on
human resource management (HRM) practices. HRM practices “can contribute to sustained
competitive advantage through facilitating the development of competencies that are firm
specific, produce complex social relationships, … and generate organizational knowledge”
(Lado & Wilson, 1994, p. 699). Building on theory of Wood (1999) regarding internal fit, the
present study proposes that when inclusive leadership behaviors and HRM practices offered by
the organization are perceived as present amongst employees, this might have positive effects.
Internal fit refers to alignment between all procedures, structures and systems in the
organization, so that all these organizational aspects work effectively (Delery, 1998). When
inclusive leadership behaviors and the presence of HRM practices are perceived positively
amongst employees, this might boost psychological empowerment and innovative behavior. On
the other hand, when HRM practices and their presence are perceived negatively, inclusive
leadership may be less effective.
Focusing on the contribution to the research field, this study aims to confirm the
mediation mechanism of the model of inclusive leadership by Randel et al., (2018). Moreover,
the present study tries to expand Randel’s et al., (2018) model by exploring whether
organizational factors, in this case HRM practices, influence the relationships mentioned in this
introduction. Next, this research tends to add relevance to the business environment, because it
focuses on employee innovative work behavior which is considered as an important, strategic
competitive advantage for companies nowadays and in the future (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).
To conclude the above, the research questions will be as follows:
5
1. To what extent does inclusive leadership affect innovative work behavior and is this
relationship mediated by psychological empowerment?
2. To what extent do HRM practices affect the mediation relationship between inclusive
leadership and psychological empowerment?
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 The relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative work behavior
Research argues that inclusive leaders own certain leader behaviors that make it
possible for group members to feel part of that group (referred to as belongingness).
Furthermore, authors argue that these members keep possessing their sense of individuality
(referred to as uniqueness) while having a hand in group processes and outcomes (Brewer,
1991; Shore et al., 2011; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Richer, & Wetherell, 1987). The theoretical
model of inclusive leadership by Randel et al., (2018) is applied in the present research to
explain the mechanisms of the abovementioned concepts. According to this model, inclusive
leadership consists of facilitating belongingness and valuing uniqueness of group members.
Van Knippenberg and Hogg (2003) define facilitating belonginess as supporting individuals as
group members, ensuring justice and equity and sharing decision-making. They argue that
valuing uniqueness consists of encouraging diverse contributions and helping group members
to fully contribute. When leaders show group-orientated behaviors such as including members
and make sure that their perspectives are integrated, these members are likely to feel part of the
group. This is in line with the social identity theory formulated by Tajfel and Turner (1986).
This theory states that individual’s sense of who they are, is partially dependent on the group to
which they belong, and they may act differently in different social contexts dependent on that
group. From this perspective, members tend to feel that they belong to a group when the leader
of that group shows involving behaviors and makes sure perspectives of all members are
included (Van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). When employees feel part of a group, they tend to
perceive that they are part of the decision-making process, that they can interfere in
discussions, and that they feel that they can openly speak and execute new ideas (Dorenbosch,
Van Engen & Verhagen, 2005). Executing new ideas, next to developing, promoting and
implementing them, are the most important components of employee innovative work
behavior. (Janssen, 2000).
According to De Jong and Den Hartog (2007), innovative work behavior refers to the
assumption of the extent to which employees are creative. They argue it is also important when
6
and how creative ideas are implemented. According to Yukl (2002) leaders have a significant
impact on employees’ behaviors as they are a powerful source. This is also found in a recent
study by Javed, Naqvi, Khan, Arjoon and Tayyeb (2017), who conducted a research among
managers and their subordinates in the Textile Industry in Pakistan. They found a direct
relationship between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior. They argue that
employees who perceive a quality relationship with their manager, are likely to express
innovative activities (Graen & Scanduar, 1987). In addition, recent analysis of Choi, Tran and
Kang (2017) showed corresponding positive effects of inclusive leadership on innovative work
behavior. They did research on 207 employees of five telecommunication companies in
Vietnam. Arising from the theory and findings in this section, the following hypothesis is
proposed.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Inclusive leadership is positively associated with employee innovative work
behavior
2.2 The relationship between inclusive leadership, psychological empowerment and employee
innovative work behavior
The model of Randel et al., (2018) proposes an indirect effect of inclusive leadership
and psychological empowerment on the perception of inclusion. Leaders who show
inclusiveness give group members the feeling that their attitude is welcome and valued,
consequently group members feel that they have impact and control at work (Boudrias, Morin,
& LaJoie, 2014). This state refers to as psychological empowerment. When people feel
psychologically empowered, they feel that they can make a difference and have the power to
influence their job-related activities (Spreitzer, 1995). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) define
psychological empowerment also as enhanced task motivation reflected in employees’
perceptions about their role. Liden, Wayne, and Sparrowe (2000) argue that when leaders show
inclusive behavior, such as an open attitude, listen to subordinates and respect their
contributions and visions, their followers are likely to perceive feelings of empowerment, trust,
freedom and fairness. Randel et al., (2018) concludes, respecting studies of Conger and
Kanungo (1988) and Spreitzer (2008) on psychological empowerment, that employees who
perceive psychological empowerment as a consequence of inclusive leadership, are more likely
to show involving and initiating behavior. One of the explanations for the relationship between
inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment can therefore be that high perceptions of
inclusion lead to more identification with the group in which a member is working. Strong
7
feelings of identification make members more psychologically empowered (Randel et al.,
2018).
Numerous researchers found that psychological empowerment is positively associated
with innovative work behavior (Amabile, 1988; Zhang & Bartol, 2010; Seibert, Wang, &
Courtright, 2011; Singh & Sarkar, 2012;). Employees who perceive psychological
empowerment, are likely to react with higher levels of innovative work behavior (Amabile &
Gitomer, 1984; Sun, Zhang, Qi, & Chen, 2012). Aforementioned aspects of psychological
empowerment might function as intrinsic motivation factors, which stimulate employees to
create unique ideas. In addition, Alge, Ballinger, Tangirala, and Oakley (2006) argue that
individuals who perceive more psychological empowerment, have more freedom and are more
confident to show innovative behavior because they expect that the organization would value
this behavior.
Focusing on the mediating role of psychological empowerment on innovative behavior,
the accessibility of inclusive leadership is about leaders giving their employees the space to
make decisions about the work activities themselves. Consequently, employees perceive high
empowerment (Nishii & Mayer, 2009), which leads to motivation and in turn to creating useful
ideas, giving promotion to these ideas to gain acceptance, and execute them to gain
organizational benefits (De Spiegelaere, Gyes, & Hootegem, 2012; De Spiegelaere, Gyes,
Vandekerckhove, & Hootegem, 2012; De Spiegelaere, Gyes, Witte, Niesen, & Hootegem,
2014). A recent meta-analysis of Seibert, Wang and Courtright (20110) confirms this argument,
as they found that empowerment is an important predictor of innovative behavior, because it
increases ‘the ability of employees to implement their ideas and suggestions for change,
resulting in greater innovation at work’ (Seibert, Wang & Courtright, 2011, p. 986). They
explain this finding by inclusive leaders who are likely to give their subordinates more freedom
in their jobs, which makes subordinates feel that they are more competent and have more
impact in their jobs (Kanter, 1983; Spreitzer, 1995b).
Because the present study proposes direct and indirect effects, one of the hypotheses
(H4) suggests a partial mediation between inclusive leadership, psychological empowerment
and innovative behavior.
In conclusion, the following hypothesis is conducted.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Inclusive leadership is positively associated with psychological
empowerment.
8
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Psychological empowerment is positively associated with employee
innovative work behavior.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): The positive relationship between inclusive leadership and employee
innovative work behavior is partially mediated by psychological empowerment.
2.3 The moderating effect of HRM practices on the relationship between inclusive leadership
and psychological empowerment.
Despite that inclusive leadership, through psychological empowerment, may be an
important predecessor of innovative work behavior, the extent to which the organization offers
support may be an important aid or impediment in this relationship. If the organization offers
HRM practices, for example training and development practices that facilitate the development
of unique skills, expertise and competencies, the relation between inclusive leadership and
employee innovative work behavior will be stronger, while if there is no support offered, this
relationship might be weaker. HRM practices “can contribute to sustained competitive
advantage through facilitating the development of competencies that are firm specific, produce
complex social relationships, … and generate organizational knowledge” (Lado & Wilson,
1994, p. 699).
The underlying mechanism of the proposed moderation effect can be explained using
the contingency theory by Fiedler (1964), which suggests that the effectivity of leadership is
dependent on how that kind of leadership is influenced by the situation. Bringing this back to
HRM in this study, the theory suggests that HRM practices should be perceived as present
amongst employees, next to other contextual aspects of the organization and the external
environment in order to be effective (Harney, 2016). When considering leadership as a
contextual aspect of the organization, the present study proposes that the positive effects of
inclusive leadership will increase when the organization offers HRM practices.
However, it seems to be possible that this positive moderation effect is not always applicable.
This can be referred to as internal misfit, which would mean for the current study that the effect
of HRM practices could be contra productive (Becker et al. 1997). The positive effects of
inclusive leadership may be hindered when HRM practices are not in line with inclusive
leadership behaviors. An example of a misfit is that the organization provides exclusive talent
management as an HRM practice, which means that only high potential employees are
managed on talent (Iles, Chuai, & Preece, 2010; Iles, Preece, & Chuai, 2010), while
simultaneously inclusive leadership behaviors are stimulated. This phenomenon is also referred
to as a deadly combination, which might cause frustration and decreased levels of motivation
9
and trust on employees (Paauwe & Farndale, 2017). Decreased levels of motivation may
impede the positive relationship between inclusive leadership and innovative behavior through
psychological empowerment, as Thomas and Velthouse (1990) argue that psychological
empowerment is enhanced task motivation reflected in employees’ perceptions about their role
When focusing on the relationship between HRM practices and innovative behavior,
there are only a few studies that explicitly studied the relationship between HRM and
innovation (Sheehan, Garavan, & Carbery, 2013).
Concluding the abovementioned, this research proposes that HRM practices that are
offered by the organization should be perceived as present amongst employees together with
inclusive leadership, in order to strengthen the positive relationship between inclusive
leadership and psychological empowerment.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): HRM practices will strengthen the positive relationship between inclusive
leadership and psychological empowerment.
10
3. Method
3.1 Research design
To test the hypotheses mentioned in the theoretical framework presented in Figure 1,
explanatory research was conducted. This study was designed using quantitative research. Data
was collected in a cross-sectional way, which means it was collected at one moment in time
(Straits & Singleton, 2017). The research was conducted by five students of Human
Resources Studies at Tilburg University who did research on the same main topic: inclusive
leadership.
3.2 Sample
Respondents were part of the networks of the five Master students and were approached
via convenience sampling. This means that respondents were easily accessible. Employees of
governmental and non-governmental organizations were surveyed. The only requirement was
having a manager, because the respondents had to rate how inclusive their leader (manager) is.
The power and effect size was conducted using Power analysis with G*Power 3.1. When taken
into account inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment as predictors of innovative
work behavior, the post-hoc F-test showed that with a sample size of N = 238, the effect size
was .49 and the power level was 1.000. This means that the sample size was large enough for
testing the relations mentioned in the conceptual model of this study.
In total, 420 questionnaires were filled in. However, many respondents filled it in partial
which made their data not or less useful. As mentioned before, N = 238 were usable for
analysis in this research. The sample consisted of employees from national and international
organizations, in which there were no requirements for sector or industry in order to reach more
respondents who were willing to participate. The respondents were approached via a call on
LinkedIn, which made them easily accessible. Therefore, this research made no use of random
sampling.
The respondents varied in (demographic) characteristics such as gender, age and education.
This research focused on employees working in organizations operating in various sectors.
Table 1 below represents the demographic characteristics of the sample. First, the majority of
the respondents were women (61,8%). Looking at the Dutch population, this is not
representative, because in the Netherlands more men than women are working (CBS, 2019).
11
Next, the respondents in this research had an average age of 31 (SD = 9.575). Looking at the
working population in the Netherlands, data of CBS (2019) shows the average age is higher
(M=41). Moreover, in this research 85,3% of the respondents was highly educated (47,5% was
higher vocational educated (hbo) and 37,8% had a master’s degree (wo)). In 2018, the Dutch
working population consisted of 30,9% higher-educated employers (Onderwijs in cijfers,
2019). This means that the sample in this research is on average extremely high educated.
Table 1: Employee demographic characteristics.
Characteristics Employee N % / Mean / SD
Gender
Male
90
37,8%
Female 147 61,8%
Prefer not to say 1 0,4%
Age 238 Mean 31,19 / SD 9,575
Education High school or pre-
vocational education
(LBO, VMBO)
6 2,5%
Secondary vocational
education (MBO)
27 11,3%
Higher vocational
education (HBO)
113 47,5%
Master’s Degree (WO) 90 37,8%
PhD (Doctorate) 2 0,8%
Identification Dutch 215 90,3%
Other 23 9,7%
Sector Business/financial
services
72 30,4%
Healthcare 23 9,7%
Consultancy 24 10,1%
Tenure 238 Mean 3,7 / SD 5,749
12
3.3 Procedure
In order to collect data, the researchers shared a link via a call on LinkedIn (Appendix
A) in which they asked their network for help with their thesis. By clicking on this link, the
participants were redirected to survey platform Qualtrics in which a consent form was
integrated. After agreement, the digital questionnaire appeared. The questionnaire was only
available in English, in order to reach various respondents. The questionnaire consisted of 125
questions. Respondents received a consent letter (Appendix B) together with the questionnaire
(Appendix C), in which the confidentiality and anonymity of the data processing is assured and
that the data would be solely used for scientifically purposes. The confidentiality and
anonymity of the respondents was also assured in the consent letter together with the contact
information of the students. If respondents had questions or recommendations, they could send
an e-mail to one of the students.
3.4 Instruments
The concepts in the theoretical model were measured with one questionnaire using
multiple scales. The construct validity was established using principal component analysis
(PCA). This analysis shows how many components a scale contains (by showing a scree plot
and Kaiser’s criterion, which shows the Eigenvalue. Eigenvalues above 1 represent a different
component).
The reliability of the scale was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. To find out whether the
constructs are measured in a consistent way, exploratory factor analysis was conducted. To
conduct this, Bartlett’s test of Spericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of sampling
adequacy were used. Bartlett’s test of Spericity hypothesizes that variables are unrelated. This
test should be significant (p <.05), which is confirmed in this research. The KMO-test
determines if it is suitable to conduct a factor analysis for each variable in the model and for the
complete model. The KMO value for all variables was above .8, which makes the variables
suitable for factor analysis.
Inclusive leadership
Inclusive leadership was measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7
= strongly agree). The questionnaire was developed by the five students who conducted this
research and was based on the scale developed by Van Engen and Meijer (2014) and any other
available scales in the literature. The 54 scale items in the questionnaire which measured
13
inclusive leadership were based on the aspects of inclusive leadership in the model of Randel et
al., (2018). Facilitating belonginess and valuing uniqueness were considered to be the main
aspects of inclusive leadership. All the items loaded above .4 on 1 factor, except for item 6 (no
correlation) and item 44 (correlation below .4). These items were eliminated from the data
analysis, which makes the total scale items 52. A PCA was done and showed consistency
between the items of inclusive leadership. The scree plot showed 1 factor, yet 8 factors had an
eigenvalue above 1. However, in contrast to Randel et al., (2018), the theoretical framework
and conceptual model in this research made no distinction in the underlying constructs of
inclusive leadership. Consequently, in this research the factor analysis was decided to force one
construct out of the items. The component matrix of the items of inclusive leadership is shown
in Appendix D.. In addition, the KMO value was .96 which is considered excellent. The
reliability analysis of the developed scale of inclusive leadership was found to be excellent ( α
=.98)
Psychological empowerment
Psychological empowerment was measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1=very
strongly disagree, 7 = very strongly agree) developed by Spreitzer (1995) in which 12 items are
integrated. An example of an item is: ”I have considerable opportunity for independence and
freedom in how I do my job” and “the work I do is meaningful to me”. The items in this
questionnaire represent the characteristics of psychological empowerment: self-determination,
meaning, competence and impact. Bartlett’s test of Sphericity showed a significant result and
KMO value was .81, which is considered very good. According to the PCA, all items loaded
on 1 component. The scale of psychological empowerment has a high Cronbach’s alpha ( α
=.87, which means the items have relatively high internal consistency. The component matrix
of the items of psychological empowerment is shown in Appendix E.
Innovative work behavior
Employee innovative work behavior was measured using the items of De Jong and Den
Hartog (2010). This variable was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=never, 5 = constantly).
The questionnaire has 10 items. An example of the scale item include: “I like to explore new
approaches to do my job” and “I search out new working methods, techniques or instruments”.
Related to earlier research of Kanter (1988), the scale of De Jong and Den Hartog (2010)
contains the innovativeness dimensions: namely idea exploration, generation, promotion and
implementation. KMO value was found to be excellent, .93, Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was
14
found to be significant .PCA showed an excellent reliability (Cronbach’s α = .94) and all items
loaded on 1 factor. The component matrix of the items of innovative work behavior is shown in
Appendix F.
HRM practices
The variable HRM practices was measured using the scale HRM practices of Beijer
(2014) based on earlier research of Macky and Boxall (2007), Delery and Doty (1996), Sun,
Aryee and Law (2007) and Snell and Dean (1992). These items were measured on a 5-point
Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). This scale has 7 items. An example of an
item include: ”I am provided with sufficient opportunities for training and development in this
organization”. KMO value was .83 which is considered very good. Reliability was considered
also to be very good (Cronbach’s α = .86), and PCA showed that all items loaded on 1 factor.
The component matrix of the items of HRM practices is shown in Appendix G.
3.5 Control variables
This study used several variables that did not change throughout the experiment, in
order to measure the relationships mentioned in the conceptual model correctly (Straits &
Singleton, 2017). As consistent with past research on innovative behavior, job tenure and level
of education were controlled for (see Tierney and Farmer, 2002). Job tenure was measured,
because employees tend to become more pronounced over the years, which make them think
about different ways to perform their tasks. Job tenure was measured in years. Education 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 response differently on questions about innovative work behavior (Amabile, 1988).
Education level was measured using six categories: 1. Primary education (lower than
higschool), 2: lower education (lbo/vmbo), 3. Secondary vocational education (mbo), 4: higher
vocation academic education (hbo), 5. Academic education (wo), 6. PhD (doctoral). Next, this
study thrived to exclude all possible affections by examining gender as a control variable, even
though cf. Jung (2001) did not find any effects of gender on innovative behavior. Furthermore,
age was measured because previous research found a potential relationship between age and
creativity (Janssen, 2001).
15
3.6 Analysis
After one month of data collection, the data was exported from Qualtrics to SPSS. The
data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 24. The respondents were not obliged to
fill in all the questions of the questionnaire, thus data first had to be cleaned. Data cleaning in
this research contained the following: unnecessary data was eliminated, variables were given an
appropriate name, values were recoded and/or reversed.
Next, descriptive statistics were used to check for outliers and multicollinearity. This
was examined using descriptive statistics in which the minimum, maximum, standard deviation
and mean were presented. After doing descriptives, it seemed that valid N (listwise) = 209,
while total N = 238. After analyzing descriptives and frequencies, it seemed that missing
system is lower than 5% for every item of the variables, which means that replace missing
value with mean is allowed (Schafer, 1999). I conducted replace missing value with mean to all
variables with missing values. After that, valid N (listwise) = 238.
All variables were checked for outliers. For education level, tenure, age, inclusive
leadership and HRM practices some outliers were found in the boxplot. These data were
checked on logic and genuineness. In addition, the mean and trimmed mean showed small
differences between both. Therefore, the data that causes these outliers, was not removed
(Palland, 2010).
Then, gender and education level were recoded into dummies. Next, all variables and
control variables were added to a correlation matrix in order to check for multicollinearity.
Multicollinearity refers to the phenomenon that variables correlate with each other. When the
correlation between two variables is .8 or higher, multicollinearity is assumed (Pallandt, 2010).
The hypotheses will be tested in a linear regression analysis using the procedure of
Andrew F. Hayes (2013) with Hayes PROCESS macro. This research tests both model 4 and
model 7 of Hayes (2013) which contains a mediation analysis (model 4) and moderated
mediation analysis (model 7). The procedure of Hayes makes it possible to test the direct
(Hypothesis 1), indirect (Hypothesis 2, 3, 4) and interaction effects (Hypothesis 5) integrated in
this research at the same time. The variables that were used in the regression analysis are: X =
inclusive leadership, Y = innovative work behavior, M = psychological empowerment and W =
HRM practices.
First the mediation analysis was tested, in order to make assumptions about direct and
16
indirect effects without taking the moderator into account. This is conform the propositions of
the hypotheses mentioned in this research. After testing mediation, moderated mediation was
tested. This was conform the proposition of the last hypothesis; hypothesis 5. Whether a
relationship is significant, will be decided using p<.05 as a minimum level.
4. Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics
Table 2 represents the correlation matrix which shows the means, standard deviations
and correlations of all variables, including the control variables, used in this research. Using the
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, the relationship between inclusive leadership,
psychological empowerment, innovative work behavior, gender, age, tenure and educational
level is showed below. According to Pearson correlation, all variables included in the
conceptual model (inclusive leadership, psychological empowerment, innovative work
behavior and HRM practices) correlate significantly with each other. In addition, inclusive
leadership has a significant negative correlation with tenure (r=-.17, p<.05), which indicates
that employees working longer for an organization, perceive their leader as less inclusive.
Moreover, psychological empowerment correlates significant and positive with age (r=.19,
p<.01). This might indicate that older employees perceive more psychological empowerment in
their job. Eventually, HRM practices has negative, yet significant correlation with higher
vocational education (r=-.16, p<.05), which suggests that employees who are higher educated,
perceive less HRM practices.
Table 2
Means, standard deviations, Pearson correlations
Notes: N = 238. **.Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed). Gender = male (0), female (1)
Mean SD Inclu
sive
leadersh
ip
Psy
cholo
gica
l empow
erme
nt
Innovativ
e
work
beh
avio
r
HR
M
practices
Age
Gen
der
Ten
ure
Lbo/v
mbo
Mbo
Hbo
Wo
PhD
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
1. Inclusive leadership 5.16 .91 1
2. Psychological empowerment 5.03 .84 .33** 1
3. Innovative work behavior 4.34 1.26 .20* .57** 1
4. HRM practices 3.05 .84 .55** .40** .30** 1
5. Age 31.19 9.56 -.06 .19** -.04 -.03 1
6. Gender .49 -.041 -.30 -.05 -.09 -.06 1
7. Tenure 3.70 5.4 -.17* .10 -.04 -.07 .65** -.01 1
8. Lbo/vmbo .15 .09 .07 -.01 .02 -.10 .02 -.04 1
9. Mbo .31 .04 .01 -.12 -.04 .06 -.05 .02 -.06 1
10. Hbo .50 -.07 -.07 .00 -.16* .05 .02 .11 -.15* -.34** 1
11. Wo .49 .011 .03 .07 .17** -.10 .01 -.12 -.13 -.13 -.74** 1
12. PhD .09 .06 .06 .06 .08 .25** -.02 .05 -.02 -.03 -.09 -.07 1
18
4.2 Hypotheses testing
Direct and indirect effects
To test the direct and indirect and mediation effects hypothesized in this research,
Hayes PROCESS model version 2.16.1 model 4 was used (Appendix H). The model controlled
for the covariates tenure, age, education level and gender. Hypothesis 1 stated that inclusive
leadership is positively associated with innovative work behavior. The direct relationship
between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior was found not to be significant in
Hayes when taking into account the effect of the mediator psychological empowerment (B = -
.00, p = .99) (Table 1). Hypothesis 1 could therefore not be confirmed.
Hypothesis 2 stated that inclusive leadership is positively associated with psychological
empowerment. Table 1 shows that this relationship turned out to be significant in this research
(B = .31, p < .01). Therefore, hypothesis 2 is supported.
Hypotheses 3 stated that psychological empowerment is positively associated with
innovative work behavior. This relationship was found to be significant in this research (B =
.91, p <.01), as shown in Table 1. Hypothesis 3 is thus accepted.
To test the mediation effect of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior via
psychological empowerment, which was stated in hypothesis 4, PROCESS model 4 was used
again. The indirect effect of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior was found to be
significant for psychological empowerment according to the index of the mediation model (CI)
95% : [.17, .40], as shown in Table 1. Thus, psychological empowerment was found to mediate
the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior. Therefore,
hypothesis 4 was confirmed.
19
Table 1: simple mediation model: direct and indirect effects of inclusive leadership innovative
work behavior (IWB), mediated by psychological empowerment (PE)
Model 1
F(8,229)=
5.39**
Main effect
on mediating
variable: PE
Model 2
F(9,228)=15,09**
Main effect on
dependent
variable: IWB
Predictor
variable
B SE p B SE p
Constant 2.8** .37 .00 .64 .60 .23
Psychological
empowerment
.91** .09 .00
Inclusive
leadership
.31** .06 .00 -.00 .08 .99
Gender -.01 .11 .91 -.10 .14 .47
Tenure .00 .01 .77 .00 .20 .82
Age .02* .00 .01 -.02* .01 .01
Vmbo/lbo .35 .33 .30 -.60 .36 .17
Mbo .00 .17 .98 -.45* .23 .04
WO (Master) .10 .11 .36 -.01 .15 .95
PhD (Doctoral) -.13 .59 .83 .83 .61 .27
R² .16 .37
Simple mediation analysis
Bootstrap results of the direct effect of inclusive leadership on IWB
Effect SE LLCI ULCI
-.00 .07 -.15 .15
Bootstrap results of the indirect effect of inclusive leadership on IWB
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
PE .28 .06 .17 .40
Notes: N = 238. **.Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at
0.05 level (2-tailed). Gender = male (0), female (1)
20
Moderated mediation effect
Hypothesis 5 proposed that consistent HRM practices will strengthen the positive
relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment, in a way that HRM
practices consistent with inclusive leadership will lead to higher outcomes of psychological
empowerment. To test the moderated mediation effect, model 7 of Hayes PROCESS macro
was used (Appendix H). The model controlled for the covariates tenure, age, education level
and gender.
First, the moderation of HRM practices, Table 2, was found to be significant as shown
in the interaction model (B=.18, p < .01). In addition, this model shows the conditional indirect
effect(s) of inclusive leadership on psychological empowerment at different values of HRM
practices. As mentioned by Preacher, Rucker and Hayes (2007), the value in the middle
represents the average. The upper value is one standard deviation less, and the one below
represents one standard deviation more. It shows that psychological empowerment mediates
inclusive leadership at average and higher levels of HRM practices. For psychological
empowerment, the 95% bootstrap interval on average [.08; .32] and higher levels [.16; .51] has
no zero in it. It shows different effects of inclusive leadership on psychological empowerment
at different levels of the moderator: HRM practices.
Thus, the positive relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological
empowerment was found to be stronger for employees who perceive higher levels of HRM
practices, which is visualized in Figure 2. Hypothesis 5 is therefore accepted.
21
Table 2: Moderated mediation model: conditional direct and indirect effects of inclusive
leadership on IWB moderated by HRM practices.
Model 1
F(10,227)=
8.17**
Main effect
on mediating
variable: PE
Model 2
F(9,228)=15,16**
Main effect on
dependent
variable: IWB
Predictor
variable
B SE p B SE p
Constant 4.33** .25 .00 .64 .54 .24
Inclusive
leadership
.21** .07 .00 -.01 .08 .99
Psychological
empowerment
.91** .09 .00
HRM .31** .08 .01
IL*HRM .18** .06 .01
Gender .01 .10 .92 -.10 .14 .47
Tenure .00 .01 .82 .00 .02 .84
Age .02* .01 .02 -.02* .01 .01
Vmbo/lbo .32 .42 .45 -.60 .36 .09
Mbo .02 .15 .91 -.45 .23 .05
WO (Master) -.01 .11 .89 -.01 .15 .95
PhD (Doctoral) -.36 .59 .54 .83 .61 .17
R² .26 .37
Moderated mediation analysis
Conditional indirect effect(s) of inclusive leadership on PE at value of HRM practices
HRM Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
PE -.84 .05 .06 -.08 .16
PE .00 .19 .06 .08 .32
PE .84 .33 .09 .16 .52
Notes: N = 238. **.Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at
0.05 level (2-tailed). Gender = male (0), female (1)
22
Figure 1: visualization of the interaction effect of HRM practices (Low HRM, high HRM) on
the relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment
The results of the research are modeled below:
23
5. Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine whether inclusive leadership affects psychological
empowerment and if this would lead to innovative work behavior. In addition, the aim was to
investigate whether the relationship of inclusive leadership with psychological empowerment
was influenced by consistent HRM practices that served as a moderator in order to strengthen
the positive relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment. To test
the hypotheses resultant from these aims, a cross sectional research was conducted. Eventually,
the data from 238 respondents appeared usable for analyses. The respondents were employees
from different nationalities and organizational sectors. Possible explanations for the results of
this research will be discussed in this chapter.
First, inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior were not found to have a direct
significant relationship when including the effect of psychological empowerment. This was not
in line with the corresponding hypothesis in this research, based on previous studies, which
found a positive relationship between inclusive leadership and IWB (for example: Choi, Tran,
& Kang, 2017; Javed et al., 2017b). A possible explanation for the result in the current study, is
the role of the manager and the environment the manager creates. Nembhard & Edmondson
(2006) argue that inclusive leaders function from a supportive and informational role, in which
they request their subordinates to participate. Employees tend to react with a state of being:
perceptions of psychological empowerment, rather than with a kind of behavior. Subsequently,
employees show innovative work behavior as for instance creating new ideas and implementing
them (Knol & Van Linge, 2009; Afsar, Badir, & Saeed, 2014; Sinha, Priyadarshi, & Kumar,
2016).
Another reason might be that inclusive leadership only has a significant direct effect on
only one part of innovative work behavior: creativity. Jing (2015) did research on creativity of
Chinese employees. Results showed that inclusive leadership has a positive effect on their
creativity. Creativity can be seen as a crucial part of innovative work behavior, as it can be seen
as the start of the innovation process (West, 2002). Creativity includes exploring and
generating ideas. In the current research respondents scored relatively high on creativity related
components of innovative work behavior. For example: the item “I wonder how things can be
improved” has a relatively high average score (M = 5.08).
The last reason mentioned in this discussion is that of the organizational context. The
company’s culture might have an influence as the positive effects of an inclusive leader within
a non-inclusive culture might be hindered. When inclusive leaders share power with their
24
subordinates, employees feel that they have autonomy on their work processes. Research
argues it is difficult to create an inclusive culture, when employees don’t get the opportunity to
express their point of views and ideas (Pless & Maak, 2004; Brown & Treviño, 2006; De
Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008; Piccolo et al., 2010).
Second, in line with the expectations, inclusive leadership and psychological
empowerment were found to have a positive affection. An explanation for this, could be that
the characteristics of an inclusive leader stimulate employees’ psychological empowerment
(Jung and Sosik, 2002; Parry and Proctor-Thomson, 2002; Jung, Chow, and Wu, 2003; Masood
and Afsar, 2017). Characteristics such 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, subordinates were motivated to participate and speak
out (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Bowers, Robertson & Parchman, 2012).
Third, in this research psychological empowerment and innovative work behavior were
found to have a significant, positive relationship. This is in line with the corresponding
hypothesis stated in this research. Other researchers argue that employees showed more
innovative work behavior if they had been given autonomy and choice in how they want to
reach their job-related goals (Amabile & Gitomer, 1984; Sun, Zhang, Qi, & Chen, 2012). In
addition, Javed et al. (2017a) explained creating innovative ideas is not a common work-related
task. An employee has to step beyond his day-to-day activities, by which they mean that
employees have to perceive psychological empowerment and the trust assigned by the support
and means to carry out these ideas.
Fourth, considering the hypothesized relation between inclusive leadership and
innovative work behavior, the mediating role of psychological empowerment between these
concepts was found to be significant in this study. This is corresponding with the hypothesis
stated in this research. As stated before, this positive significant relationship could be explained
with employees’ perceptions of inclusive leadership. Positive perceptions tent to enhance the
level of task motivation which may be shaped by psychological empowerment (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990). Consequently, the enhanced task motivation makes employees eager to
create innovative ideas with which the organization gains competitive advantages (De
Spiegelaere, Gyes, & Hootegem, 2012; De Spiegelaere, Gyes, Vandekerckhove, & Hootegem,
2012; De Spiegelaere, Gyes, Witte, Niesen, & Hootegem, 2014).
Eventually, HRM practices were found to significantly strengthen the relationship
between inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment. As stated before, this could be
explained because of the perceived presence of different kinds of organizational policies and
25
practices (Becker et al. 1997). When employees perceive their leader as highly inclusive, and
they perceive high levels of HRM practices in their organization at the same time, the effect of
HRM practices could be stronger. In addition, when employees experience HRM practices such
as promotion and learning opportunities and experience support from the organization
simultaneously, this might lead to enhanced motivation and creative input in their job (Ibrahim,
Isa & Shahbudin, 2016)
5.1 Limitations
Despite the relevance of the study, there are also limitations that should be mentioned.
First, the research was cross-sectional. As stated before, cross-sectional research is data
collection in one moment in time (Straits & Singleton, 2017). This could enhance difficulties in
interpreting associations between variables (Levin, 2006). Future research could focus on
longitudinal study, in order to repeatedly observe the variables in different periods of time. For
this research it might be interesting to conduct longitudinal research as it provides more power
in the cause-and-effect relationship between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior
and shows more reliable patterns in the perceptions of inclusive leadership over time. This
could for example mean that employees perceive their manager less inclusive over a longer
period of time, thus when tenure increases. Second, a questionnaire was used to collect data
instead of observation of employees. When using questionnaires, there is a possibility that
questions will be forgot or left unanswered. Moreover, respondent bias may be an issue as the
respondents fill in the questionnaire socially desirable. As the scores of respondents on average
were high on all items of the variables mentioned in the conceptual model, the results of this
research might be less significant when a part of the respondents actually perceive their
manager as non-inclusive indeed. Further research could focus on observation of employees, in
order to attain more insights in accurate behaviors of employees (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone,
2002).
Third, it was not obliged to fill in the complete questionnaire and the questionnaire had
125 questions in total. This might have had influence on the response rate, as a trend is visible
in the dataset: questions at the start of the questionnaire about inclusive leadership had a
relatively high respondents rate, as questions about HRM practices, which were asked at the
end of the survey, were often left blank or filled out only partial. Nevertheless, all data was
taken into account. Consequently, after data cleaning a significant part of the data was not or
less usable. In this research 403 respondents filled in the questionnaire, yet only 238
26
questionnaires were usable for analysis. Further research could therefore make it obligated to
fill in the entire questionnaire in order to create higher statistical power.
Fourth, respondents were evoked via LinkedIn. The researchers posted a message on
their profile, in order to reach their network. The fact that the questionnaire was in English
only, might exclude people who are not able to read English or are less educated. Moreover, as
the researchers are all Dutch students of Tilburg University, the sample turned out to be highly
homogeneous. A significantly large part of the sample was highly educated, and relatively
young. These characteristics might have affect the results, because, as stated before, the sample
was not representative for the Dutch working population. This makes it difficult to conclude for
this population. Future researchers should approach a broader population in terms of
demographic variances.
As a significantly large part of the sample was Dutch, the results cannot be generalized
to a wider international context than the Dutch context. Future research should involve larger
samples, in which a different culture or context is involved. As the Dutch organizational culture
has a high individualism value (Hofstede, 2010), it might for example be interesting to study
inclusive leadership in a country in which collectivism value is high and employees might
expect different behaviors from their manager in terms of inclusion.
Lastly, future research could focus on another mediator, in order to examine other
factors that might predict innovative work behavior or are an outcome of inclusive leadership.
The same applies for the moderator HRM practices, future research is needed to discover more
about HRM practices, other HRM practices or on another kind of moderator.
5.2 Scientific contributions
This research might contribute to the research field of inclusiveness literature, with
giving insights in the importance of leadership and inclusive leadership in relation to
employee’s empowerment and behavior. This relationship has not often been studied in the past
yet. With attributing importance of the mediating effect, as there was found no direct effect
between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior, this research contributes to new
insights in the relation between these concepts.
In addition, the moderation effect of HRM is found significantly positive. Therefore,
this study contributes to the HRM research field with giving insights in the significant role of
HRM and the effectiveness of HRM practices found in this research.
As mentioned before, this study aimed to confirm the mediating part of the inclusive
27
leadership model by Randel et al., (2018), in which this research succeeded. In addition, this
study expanded the model of Randel’s et al., (2018) with adding organizational factors, in this
case HRM practices to the existing model.
5.3 Practical contributions
Next to scientific contributions, the outcomes of this research add relevance to the
business environment, e.g. it has practical contributions.
As mentioned before, employee creativity and innovative work behavior is considered
as an important, strategic advantage for organizations nowadays and in the future (Shalley &
Gilson, 2004). This research adds insights in how managers can boost innovative work
behavior among their subordinates. For example, organizations could lay emphasis on the value
of inclusive leadership in which HR managers could focus on attaining leaders with inclusive
characteristics. Recruitment and selection procedures could embed inclusive leadership profiles
in order to find the perfect match with candidates for management functions.
Next, inclusive leadership style characteristics as facilitating belongingness and valuing
uniqueness have a significant impact on psychological empowerment as found in this research.
HR management could create HR policies and practices which are consistent with developing
and attaining this leadership style. For example, blueprints of desired behaviors and capabilities
of an inclusive leader that fits the organization can be used. With these blueprints the presence
of the desired behaviors and capabilities amongst current management can be measured.
Consequently, appropriate training tools can be used to develop inclusive behavior in the
organization.
Moreover, this research contributes to the changing role of HR, as server or facilitator to
the business in order to add value to organizational outputs such as psychological
empowerment and consequently innovative work behavior. Adding value can be attained with
HR policies emphasizing on implementing human resource development practices, such as
internal mobility programs and training programs, because these kind of HRM practices might
have a positive interaction effect on inclusive leaders and psychological empowerment.
28
Conclusion
This research found a positive relationship between inclusive leadership and innovative
work behavior through psychological empowerment. In addition, this study contributes to the
research field of HRM because of the finding of strengthening effects of HRM practices on the
relationship between inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment. Further research is
needed to examine the effect of other HRM practices as moderating role and to investigate
other mediators between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior.
29
6. References
Afsar, B., & Masood, M. (2018). Transformational Leadership, Creative Self-Efficacy, Trust in
Supervisor, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Innovative Work Behavior of Nurses. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188631771189
Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G. A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. (2006). Information privacy in
organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1), 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.221
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(90)90018-Q
Amabile, T. M., & Gitomer, J. (1984). Children’s Artistic Creativity: Effects of Choice in Task
Materials. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 209–
215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167284102006
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E. & Harrington, E.
(2000). Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas.
Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 265-85.
https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900167029
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. 1990. Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal agency. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 7(2), 128–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209008406426
Basadur, M. (2004). Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly. 15(1). 103-121. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.007.
Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A., Pickus, P.S. and Spratt, M.F. (1997), HR as a source of
shareholder value: Research and recommendations. Hum. Resour. Manage., 36: 39-47.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199721)36:1<39::AID-HRM8>3.0.CO;2-X
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2007). High-performance work systems and organisational
performance: Bridging theory and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,
45(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411107082273.
Božić, L. & Ozretić Došen, Đ. (2015). Enabling innovation and creativity in market-oriented
firms. Baltic Journal of Management, 10(2), 144-165. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-11-
2013-0170
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12056
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and social psychology bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
30
Bryan, J.H. (1999). The diversity imperative, Executive Excellence, New Delhi, India: Sage
Carmeli, A., Meitar, R. & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self‐leadership skills and innovative behavior at
work. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75-90.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720610652853
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2019, 19th January 2019). Verschil arbeidsdeelname
mannen en vrouwen weer kleiner. Retrieved from: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-
nl/nieuws/2019/03/verschil-arbeidsdeelname-mannen-en-vrouwen-weer-kleiner
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. (2019). Werkenden. Retrieved from: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-
nl/visualisaties/dashboard-arbeidsmarkt/werkenden
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. (2013). Annual review: investing in our
future. Retrieved from: https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/annual-review_2013-14_tcm18-
11770.pdf
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, 43, 931-944.
Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H., & Kang, S. W. (2017). Inclusive leadership and employee well-
being: The mediating role of person-job fit. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(6), 1877-1901.
Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988) The empowerment process: integrating theory and
practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471-482.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258093
de Hoogh, A. H. B., & den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships
with leader’s social responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’
optimism: A multi-method study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 297-
311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002
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 ournal of Innovation Management. 10(1), 41-64. doi:
10.1108/14601060710720546.
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and
innovation management, 19(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., & Hootegem, G. V. (2012). Job design and innovative work
behavior: one size does not fit all types of employees. Journal of Entrepreneurship,
Management and Innovation (JEMI), 8(4), 5-20.
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., Vandekerckhove, S., & Hootegem, G. V. (2012). Job design
and innovative work behavior: enabling innovation through active or low-strain
jobs?. Available at SSRN 2158618.
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.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/caim.12079
31
Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource
management: Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance
predictions. Academy of management Journal, 39(4), 802-835.
Donaldson, Stewart. (2002). Donaldson, S. I., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding
self-report bias in organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology,
17(2), 245-262.
Dorenbosch, L., van Engen, M. L., & 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-
8691.2005.00333.x
Famoso, V. S., Jainaga, T. I., & García, A. M. (2015). Kapital sozialaren garrantzia familia
enpresetan. Revista de dirección y administración de empresas= Enpresen zuzendaritza eta
administraziorako aldizkaria, (22), 75-92.
Fiedler, F.E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 149-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60051-9
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research
in organizational behavior, 9, 175-208.
Harney, B. (2016). ‘Contingency theory’ in Johnstone, S. and Wilkinson, A. (2016) An
Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Hayes, A.F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis:
A Regression‐Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Kulturer og organisationer. København:
Handelshøjskolens Forlag.
Ibrahim, H. I., Isa, A., & Shahbudin, A. S. M. (2016). Organizational support and creativity:
The role of developmental experiences as a moderator. Procedia Economics and
Finance, 35, 509-514.
Iles, P., Chuai, X., & Preece, D. (2010). Talent management and HRM in multinational
companies in Beijing: Definitions, differences and drivers. Journal of World
Business, 45(2), 179-189. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2009.09.014
Iles, P., Preece, D., & Chuai, X. (2010). Talent management as a management fashion in HRD:
Towards a research agenda. Human Resource Development International, 13(2), 125-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678861003703666
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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00050-X
32
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317900167038
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between
job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of management
journal, 44(5), 1039-1050. doi: 10.2307/3069447
Javed, B., Naqvi, S. M. M. R., Khan, A. K., Arjoon, S., & Tayyeb, H. H. (2017). Impact of
inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety. Journal
of Management & Organization, 23(3) 1-20. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2017.17
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-
analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599-627.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331491
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Kanter, R. M. (1988). Three tiers for innovation research. Communication Research, 15(5),
509–523. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365088015005001
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2),
131-3. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830090206
Knol J. & Van Linge R. (2009). Innovative behaviour: the effect of structural and
psychological empowerment on nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing 65(2), 359–370. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04876.x
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competitive
advantage: A competency-based perspective. Academy of management review, 19(4), 699-
727. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1994.9412190216
Levin, D. Z., Whitener, E. M., & Cross, R. (2006). Perceived trustworthiness of knowledge
sources: The moderating impact of relationship length. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(5), 1163–1171. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1163
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of
psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships,
and work outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 85(3), 407.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.407
Mustapha, R. & Abdullah, A. (2004). Malaysia transitions toward a knowledge-based
economy. Journal of Technology Studies, 30(3), 51-61.
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. https://doi.org/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), 1412-1426.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017190
33
Onderwijs in Cijfers (2019). Hoogst behaald onderwijsniveau. Retrieved from:
https://www.onderwijsincijfers.nl/kengetallen/onderwijs-algemeen/hoogst-behaald-
opleidingsniveau
Orlowska, A. (2011). The mediating effect of psychological empowerment, perception of
organizational justice and human capital on the relationship between employees’ perception
of HR practices and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Tilburg University
Paauwe, J., & Farndale, E. (2017). Strategy, HRM, and performance: a contextual approach.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS.
Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders
in organisational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75-96.
Piccolo, R., Greenbaum, R., Den Hartog, D. & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between
ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 31. 259 -
278. doi: 10.1002/job.627.
Pless, N.M. and Maak, T. (2004), Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles,
Processes and Practices. Journal of Business Ethics. 54(2), 129-147. doi:10.100710551-
004–9465–8
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1),
185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002
Schafer J.L. (1999). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management journal, 37(3), 580-607.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256701
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of
psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
applied psychology, 96(5), 981. doi: 10.1037/a0022676.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and
contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The leadership quarterly, 15(1), 33-53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004
Sheehan, M., Garavan, T. N., & Carbery, R. (2014). Innovation and human resource
development (HRD). European Journal of Training and Development, 38(1/2), 2-14.
doi:10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0128
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(4), 1262–1289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
34
Singh, M., & Sarkar, A. (2012). The relationship between psychological empowerment and
innovative behavior: A dimensional analysis with job involvement as mediator. Journal of
Personnel Psychology, 11(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000065
Sinha, S., Priyadarshi, P., & Kumar, P. (2016). Organizational culture, innovative behaviour
and work related attitude: Role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 28(8), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-06-2016-0055
Singleton Jr., R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to social research (4th edition). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press
Snell, S.A. and Dean, J.W. (1992) Integrated Manufacturing and Human Resource
Management: A Human Capital Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 467-
504.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256484
Sun, L., Aryee, S. & Law, K. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship
behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of
Management Journal. 50. 558-577. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525821.
Sun, L. Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level
investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 55-
65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.005
Smith, G.P. (2002). The new leader: bringing creativity and innovation to the workplace.
Conyers, Georgia: Chart Your Course
Spreitzer, G. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement,
and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
https://doi.org/10.5465/256865
Spreitzer, G. (2008). Taking Stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on
empowerment at work. The Handbook of Organizational Behavior. London: SAGE
Publications
Straits, B. C., & Singleton, R. (2017). Social Research: Approaches and Fundamentals (Rev.
ed.). Oxford University Press.
Tajfel, H. H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). (2nd ed.).
Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Thomas, K., & Velthouse, B. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: an "interpretive"
model of intrinsic task motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and
relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137-1148.
doi:10.2307/3069429
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Unsworth, K.L., & Parker, S.K. (2003). Promoting a proactive and innovative workforce for
the new workplace. In D. Holman, T.D. Wall, C.W. Clegg, P. Sparrow & A. Howard (Eds.),
The new workplace: A guide to the human impact of modern working practices. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons
35
van de Ven, A. H. (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Management
Science, 32(5), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
Van Dijk, H., Meyer, B., Van Engen, M., & Loyd, D. L. (2017). Microdynamics in diverse
teams: A review and integration of the diversity and stereotyping literatures. Academy of
Management Annals, 11(1), 517-557. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0046
Van Dijk, H., Van Engen, M. L., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional
wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-
related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 119(1), 38-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership
effectiveness in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.). Research in
organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, 25, 243-
295. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25006-1
Wood, S. (1999). Human resource management and performance. International journal of
management reviews, 1(4), 367-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00020
Wan, F., Williamson, P. J., & Yin, E. (2015). Antecedents and implications of disruptive
innovation: Evidence from China. Technovation, 39(40), 94-104. doi:
10.1016/j.technovation.2014.05.012
Yukl, G.A. (2002), Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). The influence of creative process engagement on employee
creative performance and overall job performance: A curvilinear assessment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(5), 862–873. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020173
36
Appendix A
37
Appendix B
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:
38
Annemieke Verschuren
Lonneke van Gils
Deqa Warsame
Wilny Octavius
Stefan van der Meer
39
Appendix C
Control variables
1. What is your gender?
Male
Female
Prefer not to say
2. I identify myself as:
Dutch
French
American
Turkish
Swedish
Spanish
Other, namely ________
3. What is your age in years?
_______________
4. What is your highest completed level of education?
Lower than highschool
Highschool or pre-vocational education (lbo, vmbo)
Secondary vocational education (mbo)
Master’s degree (WO)
PhD (Doctorate)
5. How long have you been working for your current employer? (in years and months)
________years __________ months
6. In which sector are you working?
Healthcare
Transport & logistics
Science
Agricultural
40
Education
Business/financial services
Industrial
Consultancy
Media
Construction
Legal
Art/culture
IT
Food
Trade
Recreation
Government
Catering
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.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree Strongly
agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
7. If my manager notices bias attitudes, he/she actively addresses it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. My manager shows concern with fairness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. My manager shows integrity and advanced moral reasoning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. My manager encourages others to take initiative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. My manager helps me to further develop myself in my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. My manager takes credit for work I did 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. My manager judges ideas of others based on their quality
and not on who expressed them 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. My manager helps others to further develop themselves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
41
15. My manager enjoys the success of her/his team members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. My manager ensures equity within the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. My manager encourages others to come up with new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. My manager is aware of his/her own behavior that impacts
others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. My manager listens to what I have to say 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. My manager encourages me to ask questions about my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. My manager shows respect and recognition for others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. My manager provides training and development to decrease
bias attitudes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. My manager treats me with respect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. My manager provides me with opportunities to demonstrate
my leadership skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
25. My manager provides me with constructive suggestions to
improve my job performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
26. My manager ensures that my rewards are in line with my efforts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. My manager applies rules consistently to all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
28. My manager supports me to engage in the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
29. My manager does not value the opinion of others equally 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30. My manager creates opportunities for me to develop and train
my skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
31. My manager is committed to continuously reflect on
his/her own behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32. My manager shows appreciation for different voices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
33. My manager encourages my unique contributions
in the workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34. My manager thinks of his/her own interests only 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
35. My manager gives others personal authority to take
decisions which make work easier for them 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
36. My manager asks for my ideas about my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
37. My manager asks for the input of team members
that belong to other professional groups 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
38. My manager encourages participative behaviors
within the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
42
39. My manager encourages others to use their talents 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
40. My manager encourages me to use my talents
to the fullest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
41. 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
42. My manager tries to learn from criticism when other people
express it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43. My manager empowers others to make work-related
decisions on their own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
44. My manager focuses on reaching mutual relationships
among team members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
45. My manager appreciates the differences that people
bring to the workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46. My manager shows appreciation for the unique
contributions of others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
47. My manager gives me recognition for my work
contributions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
48. My manager makes sure everyone’s opinion matters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
49. My manager is open about his/her limitations
and weaknesses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
50. My manager rejects my ideas about my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
51. My manager ensures justice within the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
52. 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
53. My manager is available for professional questions
I would like to consult with him/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
54. My manager makes sure that everyone feels part of the team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
55. My manager focuses on the team as a whole rather than
on individuals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
56. My manager helps me to fully contribute to my work
environment in a way I like 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
57. My manager ensures that team members collaborate with
each other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
43
58. My manager motivates me to do my best during job-related
activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
59. 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
60. 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.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither agree
nor disagree
Agree Strongly agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
61. My manager gives me the feeling that
I am part of this team 1 2 3 4 5
62. My manager treats me as an insider 1 2 3 4 5
63. My manager cares about me 1 2 3 4 5
64. My manager gives me the feeling that I fit in the team 1 2 3 4 5
65. My manager encourages me to express my authentic self 1 2 3 4 5
66. My manager encourages me to present myself the way I am 1 2 3 4 5
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.
Totally disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Totally agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
67. I would be very happy to spend the rest
of my career with this organization 1 2 3 4 5
68. I enjoy talking about my organization with people outside it 1 2 3 4 5
69. I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own 1 2 3 4 5
44
70. I think that I could easily become as attached to another
organization as I am to this one 1 2 3 4 5
71. I do not feel like 'part of the family' at my organization 1 2 3 4 5
72. I do not feel 'emotionally attached' to this organization 1 2 3 4 5
73. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning
to me 1 2 3 4 5
74. 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.
Very
strongly
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
agree
Very
strongly
agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
75. The work I do is very important for me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
76. My job activities are personally meaningful to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
77. The work I do is meaningful to me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
78. I am confident about my ability to do my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
79. I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform
my work activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
80. I have mastered the skills necessary for my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
81. I have significant autonomy in determing how I do my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
82. I can decide on my own how to get about doing my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
83. I have considerable opportunity for independence
and freedom in how I do my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
84. My impact on what happens in my workplace is large 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
85. I have a great deal of control over what happens
in my workplace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
45
86. 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.
Very
strongly
disagree
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
agree
Very
strongly
agree
To what extent do the following statements apply to you?
87. If you make a mistake on this team, it is often held against you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
88. Members of this team are able to bring up problems
and tough issues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
89. People on this team sometimes reject others for being
different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
90. It is safe to take a risk on this team 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
91. It is difficult to ask other members of this team for help 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
92. No one on this team would deliberately act in a way
that undermines my efforts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
93. When working with members of this team, my unique skills
and talents are valued and utilized 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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.
Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly Often Almost
always
Always
To what extent do the following questions apply to you?
94. Do you have freedom in executing your tasks? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
46
95. Can you decide for yourself how to execute your work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
96. Can you decide for yourself how much time you dedicate
to a certain task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
97. 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.
Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly Often Almost
always
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.
Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly Often Almost
always
Always
Please indicate to what extent the following statements are applicable for you.
98. I pay attention to issues that are not part of my daily work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
99. I wonder how things can be improved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
100. I search out new working methods, techniques or instruments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
101. I generate original solutions for problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
102. I find new approaches to execute tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
103. I make important organizational members enthusiastic
for innovative ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
104. I attempt to convince people to support an innovative idea 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
105. I introduce innovative ideas into work practices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
106. I contribute to the implementation of new ideas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
107. I put effort in the development of new things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
47
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.
Strongly
disagree
Slightly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Slightly
agree
Agree Strongly
agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
108. The organization appreciates my extra efforts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
109. The organization takes pride in my accomplishment at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
110. The organization cares about my opinions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
111. The organization strongly considers my goals and values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
112. The organization cares about my general satisfaction at work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
113. 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.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
114. The promotion process used in the organization is fair to me 1 2 3 4 5
115. I have a clear career path within the organization 1 2 3 4 5
116. I have very little future within this organization 1 2 3 4 5
117. I am provided with sufficient opportunities for training and 1 2 3 4 5
development in this organization 1 2 3 4 5
118. Not much priority is placed on training me in this organization 1 2 3 4 5
119. Much money is spent in my organization on training me 1 2 3 4 5
120. Extensive training programs are offered to me in this organization 1 2 3 4 5
48
Appendix D
Component Matrixa
Component
1
SMEAN(IL_1) ,530
SMEAN(IL_2) ,635
SMEAN(IL_3) ,735
SMEAN(IL_4) ,753
SMEAN(IL_5) ,772
SMEAN(IL_7) ,537
SMEAN(IL_8) ,794
SMEAN(IL_9) ,707
SMEAN(IL_10) ,782
SMEAN(IL_11) ,762
SMEAN(IL_12) ,738
SMEAN(IL_13) ,684
SMEAN(IL_14) ,693
SMEAN(IL_15) ,764
SMEAN(IL_16) ,543
SMEAN(IL_17) ,739
SMEAN(IL_18) ,596
SMEAN(IL_19) ,639
SMEAN(IL_20) ,571
SMEAN(IL_21) ,571
SMEAN(IL_22) ,751
SMEAN(IL_23) ,463
SMEAN(IL_24) ,672
SMEAN(IL_25) ,596
SMEAN(IL_26) ,748
SMEAN(IL_27) ,765
SMEAN(IL_28) ,475
SMEAN(IL_29) ,631
SMEAN(IL_30) ,661
SMEAN(IL_31) ,555
SMEAN(IL_32) ,764
SMEAN(IL_33) ,770
SMEAN(IL_34) ,760
SMEAN(IL_35) ,691
SMEAN(IL_36) ,626
49
SMEAN(IL_37) ,674
SMEAN(IL_38) ,706
SMEAN(IL_39) ,742
SMEAN(IL_40) ,795
SMEAN(IL_41) ,692
SMEAN(IL_42) ,784
SMEAN(IL_43) ,510
SMEAN(IL_45) ,744
SMEAN(IL_46) ,687
SMEAN(IL_47) ,649
SMEAN(IL_48) ,716
SMEAN(IL_49) ,558
SMEAN(IL_50) ,710
SMEAN(IL_51) ,678
SMEAN(IL_52) ,726
SMEAN(IL_53) ,503
SMEAN(IL_54) ,758
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
50
Appendix E
Component Matrixa
Component
1
SMEAN(PE_1) ,685
SMEAN(PE_2) ,752
SMEAN(PE_3) ,686
SMEAN(PE_4) ,405
SMEAN(PE_5) ,431
SMEAN(PE_6) ,325
SMEAN(PE_7) ,746
SMEAN(PE_8) ,663
SMEAN(PE_9) ,726
SMEAN(PE_10) ,751
SMEAN(PE_11) ,741
SMEAN(PE_12) ,729
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
51
Appendix F
Component Matrixa
Component
1
SMEAN(IWB_1) ,528
SMEAN(IWB_2) ,742
SMEAN(IWB_3) ,805
SMEAN(IWB_4) ,838
SMEAN(IWB_5) ,879
SMEAN(IWB_6) ,838
SMEAN(IWB_7) ,862
SMEAN(IWB_8) ,872
SMEAN(IWB_9) ,851
SMEAN(IWB_10) ,839
Extraction Method: Principal
Component Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
52
Appendix G
Component Matrixa
Component
1
SMEAN(HRM1_COR) ,557
SMEAN(HRM2_COR) ,669
SMEAN(HRM4_COR) ,838
SMEAN(HRM6_COR) ,814
SMEAN(HRM7_COR) ,845
SMEAN(HRM3_COR) ,690
SMEAN(HRM5_COR) ,749
Extraction Method: Principal Component
Analysis.
a. 1 components extracted.
53
Appendix H
54