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