inclusive leadership research paper

• Help & FAQ

About and beyond leading uniqueness and belongingness: A systematic review of inclusive leadership research

• Department of Human Resource Studies

Research output : Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

The purpose of this systematic review of 107 papers is to address the conceptual confusion about what inclusive leadership (IL) behavior entails and understand the theoretical development of IL. Synthesizing the divergent conceptualizations of inclusive leader behaviors, we propose a multilevel (i.e., employee, team, organizational) model of IL behavior consisting of four dimensions namely, fostering employee's uniqueness (e.g., promoting diversity); strengthening belongingness within a team (e.g., building relationships); showing appreciation (e.g., recognizing efforts and contributions); and supporting organizational efforts (e.g., promoting organizational mission on inclusion). Further, we provide a summary of studied variables as a nomological network in relation to inclusive leadership and an overview of the different theories (e.g., social exchange, intrinsic motivation) supporting the respective relationships and explaining the underlying mechanisms (e.g., reciprocity, motivation). We propose future research to empirically test the multi-level model of IL and examine the predictive value in terms of employee and organizational outcomes.

• Inclusive leadership
• Systematic literature review
• Belongingness
• Multi -level perspective
• SERVANT LEADERSHIP
• DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT
• PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY
• SHARED LEADERSHIP
• MODERATING ROLE
• VOICE BEHAVIOR
• MEDIATING ROLE
• ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
• EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP
• AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP

Access to Document

• 10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100894 Licence: CC BY
• HRS Korkmaz about and beyond leading uniquenness HRMR 2022 Final published version, 2.81 MB Licence: CC BY

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint

• Systematic Review Business & Economics 100%
• Uniqueness Business & Economics 69%
• Systematic Reviews Medicine & Life Sciences 53%
• Leadership Behavior Business & Economics 52%
• leadership Social Sciences 46%
• Intrinsic Motivation Business & Economics 34%
• Employees Business & Economics 34%
• Occupational Groups Medicine & Life Sciences 31%

T1 - About and beyond leading uniqueness and belongingness

T2 - A systematic review of inclusive leadership research

AU - Korkmaz, Ayfer Veli

AU - Van Engen, Marloes L.

AU - Knappert, Lena

AU - Schalk, Rene

N2 - The purpose of this systematic review of 107 papers is to address the conceptual confusion about what inclusive leadership (IL) behavior entails and understand the theoretical development of IL. Synthesizing the divergent conceptualizations of inclusive leader behaviors, we propose a multilevel (i.e., employee, team, organizational) model of IL behavior consisting of four dimensions namely, fostering employee's uniqueness (e.g., promoting diversity); strengthening belongingness within a team (e.g., building relationships); showing appreciation (e.g., recognizing efforts and contributions); and supporting organizational efforts (e.g., promoting organizational mission on inclusion). Further, we provide a summary of studied variables as a nomological network in relation to inclusive leadership and an overview of the different theories (e.g., social exchange, intrinsic motivation) supporting the respective relationships and explaining the underlying mechanisms (e.g., reciprocity, motivation). We propose future research to empirically test the multi-level model of IL and examine the predictive value in terms of employee and organizational outcomes.

AB - The purpose of this systematic review of 107 papers is to address the conceptual confusion about what inclusive leadership (IL) behavior entails and understand the theoretical development of IL. Synthesizing the divergent conceptualizations of inclusive leader behaviors, we propose a multilevel (i.e., employee, team, organizational) model of IL behavior consisting of four dimensions namely, fostering employee's uniqueness (e.g., promoting diversity); strengthening belongingness within a team (e.g., building relationships); showing appreciation (e.g., recognizing efforts and contributions); and supporting organizational efforts (e.g., promoting organizational mission on inclusion). Further, we provide a summary of studied variables as a nomological network in relation to inclusive leadership and an overview of the different theories (e.g., social exchange, intrinsic motivation) supporting the respective relationships and explaining the underlying mechanisms (e.g., reciprocity, motivation). We propose future research to empirically test the multi-level model of IL and examine the predictive value in terms of employee and organizational outcomes.

KW - Inclusive leadership

KW - Systematic literature review

KW - Belongingness

KW - Uniqueness

KW - Multi -level perspective

KW - SERVANT LEADERSHIP

KW - DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT

KW - PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY

KW - SHARED LEADERSHIP

KW - MODERATING ROLE

KW - VOICE BEHAVIOR

KW - MEDIATING ROLE

KW - ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

KW - EMPOWERING LEADERSHIP

KW - AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85123247994&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100894

DO - 10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100894

M3 - Review article

SN - 1053-4822

JO - Human Resource Management Review

JF - Human Resource Management Review

M1 - 100894

• Author Rights
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

• JOLE 2023 Special Issue
• Editorial Staff
• 20th Anniversary Issue
• The Evolution of Inclusive Leadership Studies: A literature review

Herb Thompson and Gina Matkin 10.12806/V19/I3/R2

Introduction

The current state of diversity affairs, both in the US and globally, urges for a renewed emphasis on diversity scholarship, diversity principles, and leadership practices that better facilitate inclusion. Organizations, communities, and certainly educational institutions are all shuffling to better understand how to manage this most pressing 21 st century dilemma, namely, diversity (Angelides et al., 2010; Lewis, 2016; Shore et al., 2018; Terenzini et al., 2001). Diversity, along with its surrounding constructs, (i.e. culture, multiculturism, intercultural relations) seems the likely emphasis for scholarship in this domain of issues in equity. With many campuses currently experiencing a boom in enrollment by diverse populations, still this increase has not been met with adequate practices and the necessary climate to match it (Pedersen & Pope, 2010; Solorzano & Yasso, 2000). Along with the demographic changes there has also come an increase in the level of inequities experienced by minoritized student populations (Harper, 2012). The work of critical theorists (Yosso, 2005; Parker & Villalpando, 2007; Theoharis, 2007) provides us with a more clear picture into the urgency for this work and the gaps that remain in the literature.

The emergent opportunity presented by the increasingly diverse student population in the US is well represented in census date (census.gov, 2020). The surge of diversity in higher education taken with the impacts of systemic educational inequities begs the question of how leadership might facilitate better inclusion on campuses in order to meet the present equity needs. Fortunately, research in the fields of social psychology, management, multicultural, human resources, leadership, management psych, and educational leadership have all contributed significantly to our understanding of leadership styles that might benefit educational organizations in this arena (Posselt et al., 2012). In the past 30 years, there has been a steadily growing number of articles published on the topic of inclusion and inclusive climates (Mor Barak, & Cherin, 1998; Pelled et al., 1999; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Shore et al., 2011; Randel et al., 2018). A search through a scholarly article search engine (Ebscohost), using only the topic of inclusive leadership found only 3 articles before 1990, 25 total between 1990 and 1999, 133 from 200-2009, and a total of 421 from 2010-2019. The articles on the broader topics of inclusion represent a swelling interest in the challenges faced by culturally diverse campuses nationally (see Table 1). With growing diversity in the public sector and in the educational context, there seems to a be noticeable lag in responsiveness on the part of leaders to adjust to this dynamic (Oseguera & Astin, 2004).

Publication Search Results

Differing fields have undertaken this issue of disparity resulting in new inquiries directed toward the types of leadership that might help facilitate greater inclusion contextually. These explorations have led to a current trend that emphasizes the process of inclusive leadership and its resulting climates (Rankin, 2005). Portela (2011) provides a striking motive for inclusion research stating, “[h]ere, the central function of education is to allow for the free expression and collective consideration of ideas…schools are central institutions for making democracy deliberative” (p.19). In other words, the civic challenges that college campuses are experiencing might well be the very function they must serve to better prepare citizens for civic engagement and positive change. The deliberative function of democracy hinges on the ability of its citizenry to navigate differences with a common good in mind (Portela, 2011, p. 14). It is understandable that many perceive these “differences” as an obstacle to inclusion as they can be challenging to negotiate and potentially problematic where civic discourse and engagement are concerned. It has been suggested that in order to overcome this obstacle it is necessary to develop a more complex understanding of differences, how we experience them, and how to adapt to others (Bennet, 2004; Hammer, 2008). This is asserted as a way to better navigate toward meaningful inclusion in any context, certainly in the civic arena as well. The literature demonstrates the expansive benefits of inclusion, both for the individual as well as the society an individual belongs to (Brewer, 1991; Mor Barak & Cheri, 1998; Nishii, 2013; Spreitzer, 1995). It appears that diversity has expanded in many different organizations but there often remains a severe lack of inclusion in those same environments for factulty/staff in addition to student bodies. When examining the importance of inclusion research, it is necessary to also examine the absence of these practices which results in an opposing outcome of inclusion; namely exclusion. Jones et al. (2016) provide a clear connection between exclusion and resulting psychological and physical health; these authors detail how both overt and subtle discrimination operate to negatively impact the physical and psychological health of those targeted (p.1604). In simple terms, the stakes are very high when diversity is an organizational component and when inclusion is a stated goal.

Theoretical Conceptual Framework

This literature review explores the relevant inclusion scholarship in order to provide a more comprehensive review of inclusive leadership from its theoretical foundations to the current state of this construct academic literature. The study will aim to examine inclusive leadership from a variety of disciplines in order to better assess its potential usefulness. A special emphasis will be placed upon inclusive leadership in the educational context. This was done for several reasons, educational research, 1) has shown the longest history of publication related to this issue, 2) has provided the highest publication count in the area (inclusive leadership), and 4) has a context that shows a direct need for inclusive leadership practice (Mayrowetz & Weinstein,  1999; Strike 1999; Riehl, 2000).

In adding to this evolving dialogue, our aim is to better prepare other educational leadership scholars who will continue this work into the future. We utilized a modified version of the literature review strategy suggested by Waitoller and Artiles (2013). This adjusted process is summarized in Table 2.

Review Process (adjusted from Waitoller & Artiles, 2013)

In adopting an inductive method of review, it became a necessity to organize and funnel the focus of inquiry more directly. In order to help for a cogent theme to emerge, we applied four research questions to position the article content within the scope of this study (assess the development of inclusion research). The questions were derived from Pierce and Newstrom’s framework for leadership (2011, figure 1).

• RQ1: What does this publication suggest to us about the role of leader in the outcome of inclusion ?
• RQ2: What does this publication suggest to us about the role of follower in the outcome of inclusion ?
• RQ3: What does this publication suggest to us about the role that context plays in the outcome of inclusion ?
• RQ4: What does this publication suggest to us about the process leaders engage in toward the outcome of inclusion ?

Figure 1.   Leadership Framework (Pierce & Newstrom, 2011)

Using the 5 components in the framework, 1) leader, 2) follower, 3) process, 4) outcome, and 5) context, we are better situated to conclude with an analysis of both the foundation and current state of inclusive leadership. We review the findings by decades as they each provided a very clear and distinct theme from within the literature.

The first step of this process was to dentify a relevant pool of publications. Articles were selected using the two academic publication search engines (Ebsco Host, Ebsco Education Source). This was followed by a more targeted search of the top journals for leadership (e.g, Leadership, Journal of Leadership Studies, Journal of Management Studies, etc). Search terms of “inclusive leadership” and “inclusion” were utilized to generate the data. An additional dive into the the top educational administration journals (e.g., Education Administration Quarterly, Educational Researcher, Review of Educational Research, etc). From this initial process, 102 publications were identified and added and sifted in the next step.

The second step was to provide priority publication for each research decade that would then be analyzed more in depth. The amount of publications to sift through increased by decade with thr 1990s total going from twelve, the 2000s from thirty-three, and the final research decade (2010-2019) had fifty-seven to review.  The third step involved taking the sequentially separated publications and stratifying them to identify the ten exemplar publications. The pool of publications for each decade were narrowed down to ten priority articles based on the following criteria, 1) relevance to the development of Inclusive Leadership, 2) relevance to practice or process of Inclusive Leadership. The list was limited to the ten most relevant for each decade in order to allow the researchers to review the significant studies from each decade in greater detail. The fourth step to the review was to take the thirty priority publications and assess them for the following elements; 1) publication type, 2) field of srtudy, 3) relevance to research questions, and 4) leadership framework emphasis. The final step was to identify the graduated themes for each research decade in order to better represent the foundation and formation of Inclusive Leadership as a concept.

Research Decade #1 (1990-1999): Nascent

Some interesting observations can be made with a cursory view into the makeup of the articles that span this Research Decade (RD). There is not much mention of inclusive leadership as a focus during this RD nor was there any clear evidence of its emphasis in educational research. The ten exemplary articles reviewed from this period were from the fields of education, social psychology, management, and social work. Much of the research in this time frame centered on transformational leadership (Qi et al., 2019) which also reflects the dominant leadership focus of those years. This RD is difficult to examine given the relatively limited number of available articles and the sparse references to inclusion as a construct. It would not form more fully as a cogent term until the second RD. Deeper analysis of the articles in isolation allowed for further confirmation of the themes that emerge as RDs were group and probed deeper.

It seems that social psychology can be attributed with laying the foundation of what would later become Inclusive Leaderhsip more formally. In the early 1990s social psychologists were becoming more and more focused on the internal definition of the person at the expense of sufficient emphasis on the importance of social identity (Brewer, 1991). Brewer is credited as the first to provide a sufficient model to explain why some behaviors of identity are not isolated to individualistic tendencies. It was the stance of this researcher to examine how a person moves their identity to who they are as me or “I” to a selected identity shared with a group or “we” (1991, p. 476). The potential relevance to educational leadership should be noted here as schools provide the primary context of socialization for the youth of America. The classroom is arguably the most important context for diversity acclimation as no other institution is more responsible for student identity and shared identity learning (Rankin, 2005; Cabrera, 2012). Brewer’s work in the optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) built upon Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and uniqueness theory (Snyder & Fromkin, 1980) to provide the necessary rivulet of research that will grow over the decades to follow. As Brewer (1991) puts it, “[s]ocial identity can be viewed as a compromise between assimilation and differentiation from others” (p.477). This theory-building article examines how a person’s need for acceptance can be oppositional to that person’s active need to be valued as unique from others. This connection can be made very clearly to the educational leadership context as it is here that teachers/leaders assist students trying to both 1) belong to the group, and 2) simultaneously strive to stand out from their peers (Brewer, 1991).

In the introduction to the framework of ODT, Brewer (1991) explains how personal needs for uniqueness and for belongingness interact exclusively in social settings. The primary claim of ODT is that the identity individuals form socially can be understood as “a reconciliation of opposing needs for assimilation and differentiation from others” (Brewer, 1991, p.475). The most significant contribution of this seminal work is the development of the optimal distinctiveness model. Depicted in figure 1 is the proposed interaction of needs of assimilation and differentiation. An innovative addition to the canon of social psychology, this opposing process model provides a firm foundation that will assist in explaining the part leadership plays in establishing an inclusive environment. ODT will go on to inform much of the assumptions that build into inclusive leadership studies that follow in RD2 and RD3.

Figure 2.  Optimal Distinctiveness Model (Brewer, 1991, p.477)

It was in this same period that other fields began to address the relevance of inclusion as a viable phenomenon to study. One of the first to empirically test dimensions and scales of inclusion, Mor-Barak and Cherin (1998) attempted to provide a continuum spanning from inclusion to exclusion in the workplace. Their studies provided a significant step forward in the comprehension of organizational acceptance. It was becoming clear that a “bridge” concept was missing in the existing framework of diversity and the desirable outcomes diversity might offer. The inclusion-exclusion continuum was presented as a means for explaining why people might move into a more involved organizational stance. Their emphasis on employee contribution will prove to be a hallmark of later inclusion studies and is advanced here as a predictor of successful organizational diversity (Shore, et al., 2011, p.1269). The work of these researchers and a few others provide a fitting summary of the work done in this particular research decade. We term this RD the Nascent section as this decade defines a period where formal inclusive research began. The graduated theme of this decade was titled, “Benefits of Inclusion for followers”.

Research Decade #2 (2000-2009): Formative

At the turn of the century academic attention pivots squarely to the topic of diversity and its place in societal priority. In this RD from 2000-2009, a concerted effort is applied to defining the problems triggered by diversity and the attempts to facilitate it effectively. Researchers appear in a hurry to identify processes of inclusion and simultaneously form strategies that will most efficiently facilitate it. This target and energy shift would evidence a phase transition in the evolution of this young theoretical field. The term “inclusion” will not be a central one for some time and was not widely recognized as a construct of interest in education until the third RD. Of the ten exemplar articles reviewed from this decade, half emphasized the process component of the leadership model (Pierce & Newstrom, 2011). This shift in focus should not be overlooked as it represents a significant change in the approach, research questions, and results that built in this decade. In educational circles this highlights the focus on institutional systems that either help or hinder inclusion (Cunningham, 2015). It is evident that there was a growing urgency to understand the phenomenon of inclusion as a process and thereby extend the conclusions of the 1990s. In RD1, merit of inclusion was established as an experience of followers and an outcome of social groups, but in RD2 we now see that there is an emphasis on the systems in place that induce either inclusion or exclusion. The results reveal this significant shift in content emphasis and the increased breadth in field type. In applying the research questions to the priority articles a focus on processes of leadership inclusion was descovered and resulted in the graduated theme of “Actions of Inclusion.”

Early in this decade of research, there is a less obvious connection that could be drawn to the field of communication and multicultural studies. The work of Bennett (2004) and Hammer (2008) will be important to note as they both contribute significantly to the broad effort shared by later inclusion researchers. The work of these two researchers (and others who would follow the tradition of their work) resulted in a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity, or DMIS (Bennett, 2004), and a well-respected instrument to measure this more complex perspective called the Intercultural Development Inventory (Hammer, 2008). Together, these two steps in intercultural communication studies provide a very promising bridge to the gap of inclusion research between leadership and education research.

Concurrent to the work being done by Bennett and Hammer, others were also working to articulate the experience of minorities and to identify the reach of diversity studies. The work of Brewer (1991) was revisited by authors Hornsey and Jetten (2004) in their review of the opposing needs articulated through ODT. This work provided some suggestions on how individuals might satisfy the needs of both inclusion and uniqueness. While little scientific basis was explicitly provided for their rationale, the strategies they provided allowed for greater attention and scrutiny to be applied to the “formative actions of inclusion.”  Within the review these authors present eight strategies that are aimed to facilitate group balance in the same equilibrium introduced in RD1 by Brewer (1991). They provide four strategies to meet the need for belongingness and four to meet needs for uniqueness (provided in Table 3). No evidence of empirical tests for these strategies were found by this team in the literature. The clear pivot to the process of inclusion seems a natural outcome of the previous RD and reveals the sensible next step researchers took to understand how inclusion happens. These articles serve to mature the study of inclusion in leadership literature by emphasizing the role that leaders play in facilitating engagement while simultaneously exposing the need for educational research to speak to the area of inclusive leadership on campuses (Rayner, 2009).

Inclusion Strategies compiled from Hornsey & Jetten (2004, pp251-258)

Research Decade #3 (2010-2019): Contemporary

Researchers Shore, et al. (2011) can be credited for providing the first cogent framework of inclusion in the literature we reviewed. This team of authors focused on managerial practices that lead to inclusion and built from the work of Brewer (1991) to do so (p. 1263). The authors used this theory-building article to present a framework for inclusion (Fig 2). The authors show how they postulate four possible outcomes when considering overall group inclusion. 1) Exclusion for those whose belongingness and uniqueness needs are not met, 2) Assimilation for those who feel they belong but are not valued for uniqueness, 3) Differentiation for those who are valued for uniqueness but do not feel they belong, and 4) Inclusion for those who have both needs met. In subsequent work, Shore et al. (2018) advanced an organizational framework. The article provides an effective review of the literature before setting out to better frame the experience of inclusion as it is aided and developed by leadership. They go beyond their previous work to introduce a new model that represents an inclusive organization. As a review and theory building article, this work also provides a more in-depth analysis of leadership styles in comparison to the inclusive leader designation. It does not, however, address the intercultural competency of leaders nor the climate that might facilitate inclusion.

Figure 3.   Inclusion Framework (Shore et al., 2011)

Zheng et al. (2017) introduce several concepts that aid in announcing the benefits of inclusion. They used the concept of member contribution as a means to determine levels of perceived inclusion. Labeling assertive contribution behaviors as “taking charge”, they sought to explain how inclusion can benefit an organization. Deep level similarity, or meaning connection, is seen as a direct influence on employee willingness to take charge at work and contribute voluntarily (Zheng et al., 2017). Leaders are encouraged to facilitate this experience of deep similarity with followers to help them to identify with the group, its goal, and its work. The education stream of research touched on shared values (Strike, 1999) but not as cogently as is seen in articles within the leadership field. Weiss et al. (2018) exemplified this in their article detailing the impact of leadership behavior on follower communication and voice. The implication of this in an educational setting cannot be overstated. Teacher and administrators are together the biggest influence on the inclusive or exclusive nature experienced on campus (Luedke, 2017). Other articles from this decade serve to spread the focus of research beyond previous categories (Lewis, 2016) and to enhance the understanding of how leaders, followers, processes, outcomes, and context all interact to either inhibit or encourage inclusion (Dorczak, 2011;Weiss et al., 2018; Ovseiko et al., 2019). These studies show promise for additional research that will undoubtedly follow this contemporary section of inclusion evolution. The graduated theme of this decade is titled, “Leadership in the Process of Inclusion”.

From our analysis we were able to identify several factors of interest to the existing literature and to future research in this area. First, we were able to identify the fields that contributed significantly to the evolution of Inclusive Leadership over the span of each decade (see figure 1). From this analysis we can better see which disciplines were central at differing stages of this theory’s development.

Figure 4.  Priority Publication Fields Compared by Research Decade

Secondly we discovered the types of articles utilized to evolve this construct over the span of these thirty years (see figure 5). This provided a sense of what the priority publications emphasized and allows for future research to provide literature to supplement the existing findings.

Figure 5.  Priority Publication Fields Compared by Research Decade

Third, we provide an analysis of emphasis these priority publications exhibited over each decade reviewed (see figures 6-8). This information is helpful to any researcher that may attempt to identify gaps in the evolution of the theory as well as those seeking to add to the current understanding of Inclusive Leadership with model specific and targeted research. Our final finding is evident in the graduated themes that emerged upon deeper investigation of the research decades spanning 1990-2019. These themes provide possibly the most helpful insight to both researchers and practictioners alike in that they allow for a sweeping glance of what we found to be the instrumental aspects of Inclusive Leadership study over its relatively short life span.

Figure 6.  Leadership Framework Emphasis for RD1

Figure 7.   Leadership Framework Emphasis for RD2

Figure 8. Leadership Framework Emphasis for RD3

In reviewing the literature on Inclusive Leadership spanning 30 years in a very important period of the American timeline, it is evident that inclusion has climbed into the popular consciousness. At this stage of the evolution in this discipline, caution should be heeded as it appears there are connections that need to be made between various fields, all working diligently to answer the pressing questions of inclusion. The fields of social work, social psychology, leadership, diversity, management, human resources, special education, educational leadership, administrative science, and communication have all contributed in varying degrees to this query yet there does not seem to be a strong enough collaboration between shared scholarship. A systematic review of inclusion research seeks to catalogue the development of concepts in the various areas in order to extrapolate shared themes as well as complementary concepts. Lewis (2016) examines how power “happens” epistemologically and asserts that there is a clear need to better understand how leadership impacts the overlap of inclusion and activism. The author states, “the concept of action-oriented leader for inclusive education emerged from this evolution of managerial to distributed to transformative styles of leadership” (Lewis, 2016, p. 336). The importance of leadership is undeniable, and it is interesting to note that it took until the late RD3 before most disciplines began to assign significance to it by way of published articles.

It should be noted that we are in a time of expanding interest in diversity and inclusion on campuses and with that comes a strong push for research related to these concepts (Raynor, 2009). Lewis (2016) further explains that despite the efforts of society to reduce discrimination and its negative effects, “segregation practices have increased in the United States” (p. 330-331). The author states that, “[i]nclusion is about more than equal distribution of resources; it is about equal access and the full participation of historically marginalized groups” (p. 336). While incredibly helpful as a directional statement for research, this highlights the greatest current issue in the present evolution of inclusion research: how? How do educators and educational administrators facilitate inclusive leadership practices in this present and critical moment. The work of Hammer (2008) provides the most promising response to this gap in the present inclusion development. It is clear that a system is needed to both explain and expand leaders’ ability to identify and appreciate group members’ differences. Lewis (2016) added, “[a]lthough leadership roles of the early 2000s remained focused on building relationships and sharing power, reform efforts highlighted schools, not systems, as the unit of analysis” (p. 332). It seems many researchers have resorted to a stance of conclusion that “leaders must…” but instead of providing specifics on what they should do, there is an emphasis on what they should accomplish. This is a gap that is easy to miss if there is not adequate attention applied to all elements of the leadership framework provided by Pierce and Newstrom (2011). The gap of action versus outcome is problematic for this reason; raised expectations without raised explanation of internal and external processes will inevitably lead to failure and disappointment (Harris III & Bensimon, 2007). It is the opinion of these authors, therefore, that leadership pre-dispositions should be analyzed in more depth as a priority in this field. The research of Bennett (2004) and Hammer (2008) provides a helpful foundation from which to begin.  The DMIS and IDI provide a developmental focus that might provide both leaders and followers with the necessary awareness and tools to better negotiate the needs of belongingness and uniqueness in a the classroom. We know that this context can serve to meet these needs but because of the work of the researchers studied, we know it can also restrict their fulfillment. Future research should seek to forge a strong connection between the work of multicultural/intercultural studies and inclusion research.

The final area of discussion on this review relates to future efforts to examine the evolution of this construct. It is clear that the field would benefit from a meta-analysis of Inclusive Leadership to better situated it in relation to historical happenings over this time and to more accurately assess what aspects of Inclusive Leadership are yet to be studied. There are many benefits to this approach and no shortage of indicators from this present study. As an example, we note in the third research decade that the “consequences” component of the leadership framework (Pierce & Newstrom, 2001)  accounted alone for half the priority publications for that span in its development. Consider also that the component of “follower” does not occur at all, which should be considered in a meta-analysis of this evolving leadership area. Does the emphasis on consequences reveal a trend toward institutional measurement of diversity climate? Were the political swings of this decade a potential reason for an absence of follower focus within publications at that time?  A meta-analysis of the literature borrowing from the adapted system we present here would allow for more general connections and insights to be gleaned.

As was mentioned in the introduction, the national discourse highlights the significant civic challenges we face in our societal development and identity formation. The increased recognition of new and important dynamics of difference has helped to position inclusion as a critical component in the ongoing process of valuing and integrating these differences in all contexts. The college campus might be the ideal environment to both investigate and refine the process of inclusion as it provides the most sensible avenue to prepare individuals for positive/effective civic discourse and engagement. It remains true that there are real challenges to this effort of inclusion. When differences are denied it can produce citizenry who are wary of others that are not like them, resulting in some of the red lining practices that we know have wrought drastic social consequences. When differences are viewed and modeled as polarizing forces it can be expected that they will trend toward creating civic conflict rather than productive understanding. When society minimizes differences we tend to mute the numerous benefits they actually bring to the educational and civic context. This review has also highlighted the function that inclusion can serve in all contexts. It also demonstrates that colleges can model and encourage this important dynamic. In the preamble to the US constitution our national goals are clearly stated. We are all striving to form a more perfect union; civic engagement, we know, is established as the social function reserved to promote and ensure that ultimate output. Inclusion, it seems, best provides us the sensible process to facilitate a more perfect union. This is especially true because there are so many voices that need to be considered and represented in the vast tapestry of our national landscape. When this happens, we have every reason to expect positive change. We can expect that individuals will experience personal acceptance and positive personal distinction. We can expect that nationally we will learn how to accept differences as we experience them and adapt to them in countless healthy and meaningful ways.

Authors’ Note: The following articles are priority publications included in the review but not included in the Reference section as they were not specifically mentioned in this article.

• Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining” equity” of American higher education. The Review of Higher Education , 27(3), 321-341.
• Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1995). The meaning and practice of inclusion for students with learning disabilities: Themes and implications from the five cases. The Journal of Special Education , 29 (2), 163-180.
• Barnett, C., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (1998). Principals’ knowledge of and attitudes toward inclusion. Remedial and Special Education , 19 (3), 181-192.
• Bennett, C. I. (2002). Enhancing ethnic diversity at a Big Ten University through Project TEAM: A case study in teacher education.  Educational Researcher ,  31 (2), 21–29.
• Berry, R. A. (2006). Inclusion, power, and community: Teachers and students interpret the language of community in an inclusion classroom. American Educational Research Journal , 43(3), 489-529.
• Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource Management , 423-441.
• Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who Is This “We”? Levels of collective idenity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83-93.
• Brewer, M. B., Weber, J. G., & Carini, B. (1995). Person memory in intergroup contexts: Categorization verses individuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 29-40.
• Fleming, J., & Love, M. (2003). A systemic change model for leadership, inclusion, and mentoring (SLIM). Early Childhood Education Journal , 31(1), 53-57.
• Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership. Taylor & Francis.
• Jaquez, F. (2016). THE Global Leadership TRIFECTA. (Cover story).  TD: Talent Development ,  70 (9), 44–48.
• Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature.  Review of Educational Research ,  86 (4), 1272–1311.
• Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving cultural relevance and achievement motivation into inclusive classroom cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53 (2), 78–96.
• Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal Distinctiveness Theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. In J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 63-113). Academic Press.
• Liou, Y.-H., & Daly, A. J. (2019). The Lead Igniter: A longitudinal examination of influence and energy through networks, efficacy, and climate.  Educational Administration Quarterly ,  55 (3), 363–403.
• Nembhard, I. M., & Edomonson, 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 , 941-966.
• Randel, A. E., Dean, M. A., Karen, H. E., Chung, B., & Shore, L. (2016). Leader inclusiveness, psychological diversity climate, and helping behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31 (1), 216-234.
• Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive Leadership. Education Review//Reseñas Educativas .
• Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools , 5 (1), 3-17.
• Shambaugh, R. (2017). All Voices on Deck: How inclusive leadership can help define your leadership style.  Leader to Leader ,  2017 (85), 12-17.
• Sonnenschein, W. (1999). The Diversity Toolkit. NTC/Contemporary Publishing.
• Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 875-894.
• Tienda, M. (2013). Diversity ≠ Inclusion: Promoting Integration in Higher Education.  Educational Researcher ,  42 (9), 467–475.
• Wenner, J. A., & Campbell, T. (2017). The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research , 87(1), 134-171.

Angelides, P., Antoniou, E., & Charalambous, C. (2010). Making sense of inclusion for leadership and schooling: A case study from Cyprus. International Journal of Leadership in Education , 319-334.

Bennett, M. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. Wurzel (Ed.), Toward Multiculturalism: AReader in Multicultural Education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Intercultural Resource Corporation.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 475-482.

Cabrera, N. L. (2012). Working through whiteness: White, male college students challenging racism.  The Review of Higher Education ,  35 (3), 375-401.

Cunningham, G. B. (2015). LGBT inclusive athletic departments as agents of social change.  Journal of Intercollegiate Sport ,  8 (1), 43-56.

Dorczak, R. (2011). School organisational culture and inclusive educational leadership. Contemporary Management Quarterly / Wspólczesne Zarzadzanie, 2 , 45–55.

Hammer, M.R. (2008). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI): An Approach for assessing and building intercultural competence. In M.A. Moodian (Ed.), Contemporary Leadership and Intercultural Competence: Understanding and Utilizing Cultural Diversity to Build Successful Organizations . Sage Publishing.

Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist institutional norms.  The Review of Higher Education ,  36 (1), 9-29.

Harris III, F., & Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach to assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes.  New Directions for Student Services ,  2007 (120), 77-84.

Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 248-264.

Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Gray, A. L. (2016). Not so subtle: A meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination. Journal of Management , 1588-1613.

Lewis, K. (2016). Social justice leadership and inclusion: a genealogy.  Journal of Educational Administration and History , 48(4), 324-341.

Luedke, C. L. (2017). Person first, student second: Staff and administrators of color supporting students of color authentically in higher education. Journal of College Student Development , 58(1), 37-52.

Mayrowetz, D., & Weinstein, C. S. (1999). Sources of leadership for inclusive education: Creating schools for all children. Educational Administration Quarterly , 35 (3), 423-449.

Mor Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity. Administration in Social Work , 47-64.

Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754-1774.

Oseguera, L. & Astin, A. W. (2004). The declining “equity” of American higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 27 (3), 321-341.

Ovseiko, P. V., Pololi, L. H., Edmunds, L. D., Civian, J. T., Daly, M., & Buchan, A. M. (2019). Creating a more supportive and inclusive university culture: a mixed-methods interdisciplinary comparative analysis of medical and social sciences at the University of Oxford. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 44 (2).

Parker, L., & Villalpando, O. (2007). A race(cialized) perspective on education leadership: Critical Race Theory in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43 (5), 519-524.

Pedersen, P. B., & Pope, M. (2010). Inclusive cultural empathy for successful global leadership. American Psychologist, 65 (8), 841–854.

Pelled, L. H., Kedfird Jr, G. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1999). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies , 1013-1031.

Pierce, J. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (2011). Leaders and the Leadership Process. McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Portela, A. (2011). Identity, school inclusion and leadership.  Contemporary Management Quarterly/Wspólczesne Zarzadzanie ,  2 .

Posselt, J. (2014). Toward inclusive excellence in graduate education: Constructing merit and diversity in Ph.D. admissions.  American Journal of Education: Special Issue on Racial Diversity in Graduate Education, 120 (4), 481-514.

Qi, L., Liu, B., Wei, X., & Hu, Y. (2019). Impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative behavior: Perceived organizational support as a mediator.  PloS ONE ,  14 (2), e0212091.

Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing potential outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniquness. Human Resource Management Review , 190-203.

Rankin S. R. (2005). Campus climates for sexual minorities.  New Directions for Student Services, 2005 (111), 17-23.

Rayner, S. (2009). Educational diversity and learning leadership: a proposition, some principles and a model of inclusive leadership? Educational Review, 61 (4), 433–447.

Riehl, C. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration.  Review of Educational Research,   70 (1), 55-81.

Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review , 176-189.

Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management , 1262-1289.

Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum.

Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students.  Journal of Negro Education,  60-73.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal , 1442-1465.

Strike, K. A. (1999). Can schools be communities? The tension between shared values and inclusion. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (1), 46–70.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. Austin, Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Terenzini, P., Cabrera, A., Colbeck, C., Bjorklund, S., & Parente, J. (2001). Racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom: Does it promote student learning? The Journal of Higher Education , 509-531.

Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership.  Educational Administration Quarterly ,  43 (2), 221-258.

Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of Educational Research, 83 (3), 319-356.

Weiss, M., Kolbe, M., Grote, G., Spahn, D. R., & Grande, B. (2018). We can do it! Inclusive leader language promotes voice behavior in multi-professional teams.  The Leadership Quarterly ,  29 (3), 389-402.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth.  Race Ethnicity and Education ,  8 (1), 69-91.

Zheng, X., Diaz, I., Zheng, X., & Tang, N. (2017). From deep-level similarity to taking charge: The moderating role of face consciousness and managerial competency of inclusion. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 89-104.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The impact of inclusive leadership on employees’ innovative behaviors: the mediation of psychological capital.

• 1 Global Institute for Zhejiang Merchants Development, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China
• 2 The School of Management, Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China
• 3 Zhejiang ChangZheng Vocational & Technical College, Hangzhou, China

Employee innovation is the cornerstone of the organization, and the motivation for employee innovative behavior largely depends on the leadership style of the leader. With the economic development of society, the traditional authoritative style of leadership can no longer adapt to the psychological characteristics of employees, who use new-era work concepts, techniques, and social rules (hereafter, new generation employees). Inclusive leadership is based on the concept of “fully inclusive and equitable” in traditional Chinese culture, and it can adapt to the independent needs of new generation employees. At present, the research on the relationship between the traditional leadership style and employee innovative behavior is relatively extensive, but there is little research on the relationship between inclusive leadership style and employee innovative behavior, and this needs further exploration. This paper takes new generation employees as the sample and uses psychological capital as an intermediary variable to explore the influence of inclusive leadership style on the innovative behaviors of new generation employees. We found that inclusive leadership is significantly and positively related to new generation employees’ innovative behavior. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Introduction

Innovation drives enterprise development, and companies are relying more and more on their employees’ innovative contributions to maintain and improve their competitiveness ( Odoardi et al., 2015 ). “New generation employees” have gradually become the new enterprise workforce. We mean to expand the traditional meaning of the term “new generation employees” to fit today’s realistic workplace situations. We refer to the term “workers of new era,” which describes those workers who complete their jobs with new-age concepts, techniques, and social rules in mind. Accordingly, workers’ composition is not necessarily related to the sole factor of demographic age. For example, an older employee may be a new generation employee because of his/her renewed working philosophy learned through continuous education and higher educational degrees. Such workers may not be well led by leaders using traditional leadership models, which is why we conduct the present study. New generation employees have different working values from the previous generation’s traditional work values ( Hou et al., 2014 ), challenging traditional leadership and governance methods. Increasing numbers of scholars have focused their research on issues such as high turnover rate and low organizational commitment ( Cheng and Lin, 2017 ).

The effects of certain leadership styles may have different consequences for different generations in the workplace ( Al-Asfour et al., 2014 ). To date, few studies have explored the suitability of different types of leadership styles for generational working groups and how to stimulate their innovative behaviors. Leadership, as an important organizational scenario variable, has an important impact on employees’ innovative behaviors ( Zubair et al., 2015 ; Liu et al., 2017 ). Among leadership styles, the inclusive leadership style emphasizes being people-oriented ( Liu et al., 2017 ), fairness, and justice ( Liu et al., 2016 ), which might be suitable for the new generation workers mentioned above. Therefore, this paper introduces the inclusive leadership style into the research on the innovative behavior of new generation employees.

Furthermore, new generation working styles require new governance approaches, which depart from concrete, tangible, pre-defined rules to more diverse, flexible, and intangible motivators ( Chen and Zhou, 2018 ). For example, new generation employees may contribute to innovative working behaviors by using self-stimulated psychological motivators (e.g., need for achievement) rather than organizational demands and orders ( McClelland et al., 1976 ), especially in an innovative or entrepreneurial context ( Hansemark, 1998 ). In addition, new generation employees may have a different state of positive psychological power that is beneficial to the generation of innovative behaviors ( Staples, 2014 ). The effects of certain leadership styles on new generation employees’ innovative behaviors should be influenced by collective psychological state more than is seen in a traditional workplace. To examine this, we used psychological capital as an intermediary variable to explore how inclusive leadership impacts the innovative behavior of new generation employees. This paper enriches the research on inclusive leadership and innovative behavior among new generation employees, and it provides theoretical guidance for management to strengthen new generation employees’ advantages and increase their innovative behavior.

Theory and Hypothesis

Inclusive leadership.

Inclusion is written into the UN Millennium Development Goals and is a historical feature of Chinese civilization ( Yuan, 2007 ). Inclusiveness is a traditional virtue of the Chinese nation. The meaning of “All rivers run into the sea” and “Wide hearts embrace all” both encapsulate the meaning of inclusiveness.

The inclusive leadership style was initially studied in the field of Western education. People of different races and abilities should be educated inclusively. Ryan believed that inclusive leadership in education requires an equal collective leadership process and defined inclusive leadership in education as the presence of a learning leader ( Ryan, 2007 ). For the first time, Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) proposed inclusive leadership in the field of management, which comprises the speech and behavioral performance of leaders in encouraging their subordinates to work and contribute. Hollander (2009) , emphasized the perceived role of employees in leadership and defined this relationship as an interdependent one that is both win-win and has a shared vision. Based on Hollander’s research, Carmeli, and Reiter believed that inclusive leadership can be judged from the interaction between leaders and employees and that inclusive leadership is open, effective, and accessible in the process of communication with employees ( Cameli et al., 2010 ). Hirak et al. (2010) used a large hospital as a study sample and found that inclusive leadership had a significant positive impact on subordinates’ psychological security. Wiebren studied the concept and measurement of inclusion. They believed that inclusion should be composed of two components: belonging and authenticity ( Jansen et al., 2014 ). Inclusion is defined as the sense of belonging and security from the team. Suk posited inclusive leadership as an open, effective, and accessible method of leadership that is positively correlated with employee performance ( Choi et al., 2016 ).

Chinese scholars started late in the study of inclusive leadership, but many explorations are still ongoing. Fang (2014) believed that inclusive leaders pay great attention to the relationship between leaders and followers, combining the characteristics of transformational leadership and transactional leadership, taking advantage of authentic leadership and shared leadership style. Liu et al. (2016) proposed that inclusive leadership pursues the principle of being people-oriented, insists on equal treatment toward subordinates’ attitudes, believes in the role of organizational cohesion, and takes its own efforts as an example. Liu et al. (2017) proposed that inclusive leadership adheres to being people-oriented, advocates individuality and difference, attaches importance to leadership-employee interaction, and is good at listening to subordinates’ opinions and contributions.

Based on the literature about inclusive leadership, this paper integrated the concept of “inclusiveness” from Chinese traditional culture into that of inclusive leadership. The concept of inclusiveness in the West was mainly derived from the ideas of democracy and justice. In Chinese culture, “inclusiveness” is more about the “tolerance and greatness” of the mind and moral cultivation. The inclusive leadership that integrates Chinese traditional culture emphasizes equal opportunity and fair distribution, in line with higher psychological pursuits and the respected needs of the new generation employees, is a new type of democratic leadership. Inclusive leaders are able to treat employees with recognition, respect, and tolerance, listen to and recognize the opinions and contributions of subordinates ( Sharifirad, 2013 ), and promote their work performance ( Choi et al., 2015 ). At the same time, inclusive leaders pay attention to employee training, give employees fair treatment, and drive business success ( Yuan, 2007 ). Inclusive leaders can help each other in interacting with their subordinates ( Nishii and Mayer, 2009 ). It is this “relational leadership” that interacts with leaders and employees ( Cameli et al., 2010 ) and is responsible for the final outcome. Inclusive leadership is an embodiment of openness and fairness ( Zhu and Wang, 2011 ).

In the design of their questionnaire scale, Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) divided the inclusive leadership into two dimensions: the leadership’s “invitation” and “appreciation” of the team members. Hollander (2009) developed an Inclusive Leadership Scale that includes “support-recognition,” “communication-action-fairness,” and “self-interest-disrespect” through in-depth interviews.

Based on the previous literature and empirical research, we introduced the concepts of recognition, encouragement, and inclusiveness into the leadership practices of leaders in the new era. (1) Leaders should listen to the opinions of employees, attach importance to encouragement of employees, and show their recognition when employees make achievements; (2) Leaders should respect and treat employees fairly. That is, the leaders can treat employees fairly, justly respect the employees’ suggestions, and let employees work more to receive more; (3) Leaders should rationally understand employees and tolerate their failures. That is, when employees make mistakes, leaders can rationally tolerate and understand them.

Employees’ Innovative Behavior

The concept of innovative behavior began in the 1970s. Innovative behaviors consist of three levels: organizational, team, and individual innovative behavior. This paper studies the individual innovative behavior of enterprise employees. Amabile (1988) believed that employee creativity is a novel, potentially valuable idea or thing that employees can generate, which can encourage companies to survive, grow, and thrive in fierce competition. Woodman et al. (1993) believed that the ideas generated during the innovation process can be novel or have been applied by others. Zhou and George (2001) believed that individual innovative behavior not only refers to the birth of an innovative concept but also its promotion and implementation.

Woodman et al. (1993) believed that employee innovative behavior includes the process of generating creative ideas and successful implementation. Scott and Bruce (1994) believed that innovation was divided into three phases: (1) the establishment of problems and the creation of solutions; (2) seeking support for their ideas; and (3) generating innovative standards or models that can be spread, mass-produced, and then used in large quantities. Kleysen and Street (2001) grouped individual innovative behaviors into five stages: finding opportunities, generating ideas, forming surveys, supporting, and applying.

Scholars in China has also conducted research on employee innovative behavior. Liu and Shi (2009) and Han and Yang (2011) defined employee innovative behavior as the creation and implementation of novel and practical methods when employees conduct related activities in the enterprise. Li (2017) believed that employee innovative behavior refers to the process by which employees discover problems, generate innovative ideas, promote and implement them throughout the life of the organization. Based on the questionnaires of Scott and Bruce, this paper divided innovative behavior into two dimensions: innovation outcomes and innovative thinking. Innovative thinking refers to new ideas arising from employees’ work or production process, and innovation outcomes refers to the effects of implementing new ideas into the work and production processes.

New Generation Employees

New generation employees are more active in their work and have stronger willingness and ability to learn at work than previous generations ( Li and Xu, 2013 ). New generation employees, who have strong creative ability, are not willing to be bound by the rules. They prefer fair, just, democratic, and simple working relationships. New generation employees tend to be more achievement-oriented and self-oriented, and they tend to focus on equality and disregard authority. New generation employees also have characteristics of working values such as pursuing a balance between work and life ( Li and Hou, 2012 ). These characteristics have led to lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment and higher turnover and occupational mobility rates for new generation employees ( Twenge et al., 2010 ). New generation employees are more committed to organizational fairness and justice, emphasizing equal relations with leaders. They are more eager to be recognized and respected, which is challenging to the traditional methods of human resources management.

Inclusive Leadership and Employees’ Innovative Behavior

Cultivating innovative behavior is one of the most important leadership functions of today’s organizations ( Pundt, 2015 ; Hakimian et al., 2016 ). Employees’ ability to innovate is significantly related to leadership style ( Lee and Chang, 2006 ). For example, a leader with humor can encourage expression of creative ideas as an innovative behavior ( Pundt, 2015 ). In addition, transformational leaders are good at stimulating employees to innovate by engaging their intelligence and motivation ( Zhang and Zhou, 2013 ).

Like those positive leadership styles, inclusive leadership also has beneficial effects from the Chinese cultural perspective. Employees are more innovative when working at a higher level of engagement because they think their efforts have won the leaders’ accolades ( Abdullan et al., 2015 ). Employees’ innovative behavior is also influenced by leadership support. Employees are more adventurous and innovative when the leaders support them ( George and Zhou, 2007 ).

Fang ( Fang, 2014 ) put forward the “fault-tolerant concept” of inclusive leadership in the Chinese situation and analyzed its positive influence on employees’ self-efficacy with concrete examples. Liu et al. (2017) found that inclusive leadership positively predicts teams’ mental models, and teams’ reflection moderates the relationship between them. More directly, Jing (2015) found that inclusive leadership has a significant positive impact on employees’ creativity in China. Jin et al. (2017) suggested that the more inclusive employees feel, the more likely they are to improve their performance. Randel et al. (2017) conceptually defined inclusive leadership as a group of positive leadership behaviors that can help team members feel the sense of belonging to the team and maintain their uniqueness within the team. Therefore, leaders with an inclusive leadership style have more positive expectations and tolerance for employees, which allows employees to feel more support from the leaders and then generate more ideas ( Zhu and Wang, 2011 ). For new generation employees who generally have more creative ideas but have views that contrast with the traditional leadership style, such inclusiveness incorporating encouragement and tolerance is more effective. Hence, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Inclusive leadership has a positive impact on new generation employees’ innovative behavior in China.

Hypothesis 1.1: Inclusive leadership style has a positive impact on new generation employees’ innovation outcomes.

Hypothesis 1.1.1: Leaders’ encouragement and recognition of new generation employees have a positive impact on their innovation outcomes;

Hypothesis 1.1.2: Leaders’ respect and fair treatment of new generation employees have a positive impact on their innovation outcomes;

Hypothesis 1.1.3: Leaders’ rational understanding and tolerance of new generation employees’ failures have a positive impact on their innovation outcomes.

Hypothesis 1.2: Inclusive leadership has a positive impact on new generation employees’ innovative thinking.

Hypothesis 1.2.1: Leaders’ encouragement and recognition of new generation employees have a positive impact on their innovative thinking;

Hypothesis 1.2.2: Leaders’ respect and fair treatment of new generation employees have a positive impact on their innovative thinking;

Hypothesis 1.2.3: Leaders’ rational understanding and tolerance of new generation employees’ failures have a positive impact on their innovative thinking.

Psychological Capital

Psychological capital reflects an optimistic attitude toward work and life ( Chen and Lim, 2012 ). The concept first appeared in the related fields of economics, investment, and sociology, and it emphasizes individuals’ positive psychological resources and motivational tendency ( Luthans et al., 2007 ; Zhong, 2007 ).

The discussion of psychological capital can be divided into two categories: those based on economics and psychology or organizational behavior. The concept of psychological capital based on economics emphasizes the relatively stable psychological tendencies or characteristics that individuals develop in their early years of life ( Goldsmith et al., 1997 , 1998 ). The concept of psychology in terms of organizational behavior emphasizes the characteristics of psychological capital that can be measured, developed indefinitely, and managed ( Zhong, 2007 ). The academic community has not yet reached a consensus about the constituent dimensions of psychological capital. The most widely used structure by the academic community is Luthans’ construct, which consists of the following four dimensions. Self-efficacy means having the confidence to undertake challenging tasks and try to complete ( Luthans and Youssef, 2007 ); hope is mainly composed of three conceptual foundations: cravings, pathways, and goals ( Luthans et al., 2007 ); optimism refers to positive emotions or motivations associated with good outcomes ( Luthans, 2002 ); and resilience refers to seeking positive changes in setbacks such as conflicts and failures ( Luthans, 2002 ). The research on psychological capital-related variables has mostly focused on employees’ job performance, job satisfaction, employee work happiness, turnover intention, and work slack ( Zhong, 2007 ). Psychological capital as a positive psychological factor impacts employees’ behavior, and their level of psychological capital can predict employees’ positive or negative behavior to a certain extent.

Inclusive leadership positively impacts employee self-efficacy ( Fang, 2014 ). When leaders pay attention to their employees’ needs, motivations, and communication, the employees become more optimistic and confident in their work. Inclusive leadership behaviors facilitate group members’ perceptions of inclusion, which in turn lead to member work group identification, psychological empowerment, and behavioral outcomes (creativity, job performance, and reduced turnover) in the pursuit of group goals ( Randel et al., 2017 ). Most have agreed that the employees’ mood is affected by leaders’ recognition and appreciation ( Nembhard and Edmondson, 2006 ). Positive support from leaders enhances employees’ psychological capital ( Şahin et al., 2014 ). When leaders show an open, accessible attitude toward employees and communicate effectively with employees, their confidence and hopes are higher ( Edmondson, 1996 ). Awareness of psychological safety among employees is positively correlated with inclusiveness among leaders ( Hirak et al., 2010 ). Inclusive leaders are more willing to communicate with and give feedback to their subordinates ( Edmondson, 1999 ), and they also pay more attention to employees’ participation ( Bass and Bass, 2009 ). Thus, inclusive leadership can actively promote employees’ psychological capital through strengthened self-efficacy and other dimensions ( Fang, 2014 ). Employees with higher levels of psychological capital can more often work with full enthusiasm ( Edmondson, 1996 , 1999 ; Luthans, 2002 ; Luthans et al., 2004 ; Bass and Bass, 2009 ; Şahin et al., 2014 ). Thus, inclusive leaders can enhance employees’ psychological capital to promote their innovative behavior by recognizing, encouraging, and respecting employees and tolerating employees’ failures. Therefore, this paper proposes Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 2: Inclusive leadership has a significant impact on employees’ psychological capital.

As an important psychological resource of organizational collectives, psychological capital could play a mediating role that transforms organizational-wide force/interventions (e.g., inclusive leadership) and organizational consequences. Psychological capital plays mediating roles between organizational innovation atmosphere and employees’ innovative behavior ( Luthans and Youssef, 2007 ) and between transformative leadership and employees’ innovative behavior ( Mao, 2008 ). Innovation atmosphere affects employees’ work behavior by affecting employees’ internal psychological state ( Song et al., 2011 ). Thus, psychological capital as a collectively owned positive psychological state plays an important mediating role between inclusive leadership and employees’ innovative behavior ( Dreu and West, 2001 ). Innovative behavior is not only stimulated by the objective external environment, but also motivated by subjective factors of individuals or collectives. Tierney and Farmer found that the sense of innovative self-efficacy had a significant positive impact on individual innovative behavior and that innovation self-efficacy can predict individual innovative behavior ( Tierney and Farmer, 2004 ; Hassan et al., 2015 ). Psychological empowerment affects employees’ innovative behavior by influencing their internal and external motivation. Employees’ self-efficacy and ability to work stimulate their intrinsic motivation, and those with high self-efficacy show greater confidence and have more innovative behavior ( Song et al., 2011 ). Employees tend to innovate actively if they perceive themselves in a fair, friendly and innovative organizational climate ( Wang et al., 2013 ). In addition, highly activated positive emotions promote innovative behavior, while low-activated positive emotions are not related to innovative behavior ( Pundt, 2015 ). Furthermore, when employees have hope in mind, they more easily predict their leader’s instructions or guidance for them ( Byron, 2008 ) and may turn those into innovative thoughts and behaviors. Finally, when encountering challenging situations that require leadership effects to maintain employees’ resilience, successful resilience could lead employees to generate innovative thinking based on inclusive leaders’ words or helpful actions, as they can gain different experiences and reflections from challenging situations they would not encounter in routine practice. In summary, the four dimensions of psychological capital can each be examined as mediators that intervene on the influence of inclusive leadership on innovative behavior, leading to Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 3: Psychological capital plays a mediating role between inclusive leadership and employees’ innovative behavior.

Hypothesis 3.1: Psychological capital plays a mediating role between inclusive leadership and employees’ innovation outcomes.

Hypothesis 3.1.1: Psychological capital plays a mediating role between leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees and employees’ innovation outcomes.

Hypothesis 3.1.2: Psychological capital plays a mediating role between leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees and employees’ innovation outcomes.

Hypothesis 3.1.3: Psychological capital plays a mediating role between leaders’ rational understanding and tolerance of employees’ failures and employees’ innovation outcomes.

Hypothesis 3.2: Psychological capital plays a mediating role between inclusive leadership and employees’ innovative thinking.

Hypothesis 3.2.1: Psychological capital plays a mediating role between leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees and employees’ innovative thinking.

Hypothesis 3.2.2: Psychological capital plays a mediating role between leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees and employees’ innovative thinking.

Hypothesis 3.2.3: Psychological capital plays a mediating role between leaders’ rational understanding and tolerance of employees’ failures and employees’ innovative thinking.

Research Methods

We adopted a random questionnaire survey method, taking enterprise employees of Zhejiang as the research sample. We sent out a total of 372 questionnaires, and 351 valid ones were returned, resulting in a return rate of 94.35%. Among these people, 177 male and 174 female workers were questioned: 43.59% were aged less than 30 years; 19.37% were aged 30–39 years; 27.64% were aged 40–49 years; 7.69% were aged 50–59 years; and 1.71% were aged over 60 years. Most employees had a bachelor’s degree or above: 57.55% undergraduate, 10.54% master’s, and 3.70% doctorate. General staff accounted for 29.63% of the sample, followed by 19.09% middle layer managers, and 7.12% senior professional and technical personnel. Focusing on those who were aged above 40 years in the sample (i.e., those easily excluded from the group of new generation employees), nearly 60% had earned an educational degree of bachelor’s or above, and over 20% of them used continuing education as a major tool to update work concepts and skills. In terms of job positions, over 20% of them were working as experts/professionals, and over 50% were managers. Both of those job types were characterized by high-level and fast-changing knowledge bases, and those sampled employees were therefore required to update themselves to fit new work concepts, models, and trends.

Research Tool

This article contains three scales. The Inclusive Leadership Scale was designed based on the pilot study and in-depth interviews. The Employee Innovative Behavior Scale and the Psychological Capital Scale were adopted from the questionnaires by Scott and Bruce (1994) and Luthans and Youssef (2007) , but the expression was slightly modified according to employee characteristics. These three scales use Likert type 5-point scales. We listed all questionnaire items in the Appendix for readers’ reference. The details of scale development are explained below.

Reliability and Validity Tests

Inclusive leadership scale.

Based on previous literature and previous surveys, we conducted questionnaire surveys and interviewed employees and leaders. The Inclusive Leadership Scale based on the questionnaire by Cameli et al. (2010) examines the concept of inclusive leadership style using structured interviews. First, factor analysis of the Inclusive Leadership Scale data was conducted based on 151 elements of scale data. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) test and the Bartlett spherical test were performed to determine whether factor analysis could be performed. The KMO value was 0.936, and the value of the Bartlett spherical test was lower than 0.01, so factor analysis could be performed. The Inclusive Leadership Scale included three factors: the leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees, the leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees, and leaders’ rational understanding and tolerance of employees’ failures. These three factors accounted for 64.13% of the variation: 23.01, 20.79, and 20.33%, respectively. The factor loading of each item was higher than 0.528 and lower than 0.832. Then, we performed a reliability test using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.930, which showed good reliability. A structural dimension test was conducted on the inclusive leadership style scale by confirmatory factor analysis based on 200 elements of scale data. We selected Chi-square/df, RMSEA, NFI, IFI, and CFI as evaluation criteria. The specific data are shown in Table 1 . Chi-square/df was 2.83, RMSEA was 0.08, and NFI, IFI, and CFI were all above 0.9, indicating that the model fit the data well.

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis results of inclusive leadership style questionnaire ( N = 200).

Psychological Capital Scale

The KMO value of the Psychological Capital Scale was 0.904, as obtained by analysis of the exploratory factor, and the results of the Bartlett spherical test were also significant at the 0.01 level. The Psychological Capital Scale includes four factors that accounted for a total of 63.89% of the variation: hope accounted for 20.33%, optimism accounted for 15.41%, toughness accounted for 15.16%, and self-efficacy accounted for 12.99%. The factor loading of each item was higher than 0.551 and lower than 0.868. The alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.888, showing good reliability.

Innovative Behavior Scale

The Innovative Behavior Scale uses Likert’s five-point scoring method. Factor analysis of this scale showed two factors that accounted for a total of 67.12% of the variation. The factors of employees’ innovation outcomes and their innovative thinking accounted for 34.03 and 33.09% of the variation, respectively. The factor loading of each item was higher than 0.690 and lower than 0.917. The alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.890, showing good reliability.

Descriptive Analysis

The results of the descriptive analysis are shown in Table 2 . The dimensions of inclusive leadership were ordered according to average score, from high to low: F1 (Leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees), F3 (Leaders’ rational understanding and tolerance of employees’ failures), and F2 (Leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees). The average score on the dimension of employees’ psychological capital was 3.6, which was higher than the middle level. The average scores on the dimensions of employees’ innovation outcomes and innovative thinking were 3.59 and 3.78, respectively. It is of interest to determine how to transform employees’ innovative thinking into innovation outcomes, and this requires more attention during the process of team building.

Table 2. Results of descriptive and correlational analyses.

Correlational Analysis

The results of the correlational analysis in Table 2 show that the three dimensions of inclusive leadership also had significantly positive associations with psychological capital, innovation outcomes, and innovative thinking of employees. Psychological capital also had a significantly positive association with innovation outcomes and innovative thinking by employees. There are different correlation coefficients between the three dimensions of inclusive leadership and the psychological capital: the order from high to low is was F1, F3, and then F2. There were differences between the three dimensions of inclusive leadership and innovative behavior. The most strongly associated dimension of inclusive leadership with innovation outcomes and innovative thinking by employees was F1 (leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees).

Mediation Analysis

To verify the influence of inclusive leadership on employees’ innovative behaviors, we used regression analysis. We also tested psychological capital as the mediating variables, and the results are shown in Table 3 . Referring to Baron’s and Kenny’s (1986) methods of testing mediating mechanisms, mediating effects should obey the following conditions: independent variables significantly influence dependent variables; independent variables significantly affect mediating variables; and mediating variables significantly influence dependent variables. When the independent and mediating variables were substituted into the regression equation to explain the dependent variables at the same time, the effect of the mediating variables was significant, while the effect of the independent variables disappeared (all mediating effects) or weakened (partial mediating effects).

Table 3. The result of regression analysis.

The dependent variable in model 1 was employees’ psychological capital. The three dimensions of controlling variables and inclusive leadership collectively accounted for 34.2% of the variation in the dependent variable of employees’ psychological capital ( F = 23.700, p < 0.001). Leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees (F1, β = 0.196, p < 0.001), leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees (F2, β = 0.092, p < 0.05), and leaders’ rational understanding and tolerance of employees’ failures (F3, β = 0.140, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with psychological capital. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 could be tested.

The dependent variable of models 2 and 3 was employees’ innovation outcomes. In model 2, the three dimensions of controlling variables and inclusive leadership collectively accounted for 22.0% of the variation in the dependent variables representing employees’ innovation outcome ( F = 13.324, p < 0.001). Among these, leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees (F1, β = 0.252, p < 0.001) and leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees (F2, β = 0.115, p < 0.05) positively influenced employees‘ innovation outcomes, while leaders’ rational understanding and tolerance of employees’ failures (F3, β = 0.017, n.s.) could not significantly account for employees’ innovation outcomes. Therefore, Hypothesis 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 could be verified. In model 3, the controlling variables of inclusive leadership and psychological capital accounted for 35.2% of the variation in employees’ innovation outcomes ( F = 22.130, p < 0.001). Leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees (F1, β = 0.141, p < 0.05) significantly accounted for the employees’ innovation outcomes, while leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees (F2, β = 0.063, n.s.) and leaders’ rational understanding and tolerance of employees’ failures (F3, β = -0.062, n.s.) could not significantly account for this. However, psychological capital could account for the employees’ innovation outcomes (β = 0.565, p < 0.001). F2 could significantly account for the psychological capital, but F1 had a weaker association. Therefore, leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees influenced employees’ innovation outcomes through the mediating function of psychological capital, while leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees partially mediated innovation outcomes through psychological capital. Therefore, Hypothesis 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 could be verified.

The dependent variable of models 4 and 5 was employees’ innovative thinking. In model 4, the three dimensions of controlling variables and inclusive leadership collectively accounted for 25.0% of the variation in the dependent variables representing employees’ innovative thinking ( F = 15.601, p < 0.001). Among these, leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees (F1, β = 0.298, p < 0.001) had a positive influence on employees’ innovative thinking, while leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees (F2, β = 0.077, n.s.) and leaders’ rational understanding and tolerance of employees’ failures (F3, β = 0.013, n.s.) could not significantly account for employees’ innovative thinking. Therefore, Hypothesis 1.2.1 could be verified. In model 5, the controlling variables of inclusive leadership and psychological capital accounted for 36.1% of the variation in employees’ innovative thinking ( F = 22.978, p < 0.001). Leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees (F1, β = 0.204, p < 0.001) significantly influenced the employees’ innovative thinking, and psychological capital (β = 0.481, p < 0.001) significantly accounted for employees’ innovative thinking. F1’s explanatory ability for employees’ innovative thinking was weak. Therefore, leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees partially mediated innovative thinking through psychological capital. Therefore, Hypothesis 3.2.1 could be verified.

The above analyses indicate that leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees can influence the employees’ innovation outcomes through the mediation effect of psychological capital. Leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees can influence employees’ innovation outcomes and innovative thinking through the mediation effect of psychological capital.

Discussion and Implications

In today’s society, new generation employees have gradually become the main drivers of workplace and enterprise development. This group’s professional values and community characteristics are different from those of the traditional labor force, which leads to great pressure and challenges for many traditional human capital management and leadership styles. Psychological capital might be a good prescription for such stresses ( Shabir et al., 2014 ). Based on the concept of inclusiveness in Chinese culture, we have explored the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior with psychological capital as a mediator. We conclude the following. First, inclusive leadership has a significant positive influence on new generation employees’ psychological capital and then innovative behaviors.

Second, we conclude that different dimensions of inclusive leadership have different influences on different dimension(s) of innovative behaviors. Among the three dimensions of inclusive leadership style, leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees has a significant influence on new generation employees’ innovation outcomes and innovative thinking. Leaders’ respect and fair treatment of new generation employees has a significant influence on their innovation outcomes. Further, we provide detailed information about practical implications. Leaders adopting an inclusive style know more precisely how to generate different innovative results for new generation employees. Third, psychological capital plays a mediating role between leaders’ respect and fair treatment of employees’ innovation achievements. It also played a partial mediating role between leaders’ encouragement and recognition of employees’ innovation outcomes and innovative thinking. Such results add to the existing literature by clarifying psychological capital’s differentiated effects on different inclusive leadership-innovative behavior relationships. Fourth, different from the concept of fairness and justice in Western countries, this article integrates the traditional Chinese cultural aspect of “tolerance as a virtue” into the connotation of inclusive leadership style and emphasizes the concepts of tolerance and leniency. Combining the characteristics that differ between traditional employees and new generation employees, we used empirical research to verify how inclusive leadership style affects employees’ innovative behavior. The results promote the reasonable use of the inclusive leadership style, adaptation to the characteristics of new generation employees, and giving a full audience to new generation employees. The results ultimately provide a basis for boosting the innovative thinking and behavior of the new generation employees.

This paper provides theoretical bases and implications for future studies. It also supplements and expands the research on the relationship between inclusive leadership style and employees’ innovative behavior and provides new ideas for human resource management approaches among new generation employees.

Our results have practical significance for enterprise human resource management and the development of entrepreneurial leadership style in the new era. The results give leaders clear guidance regarding leadership style that can accommodate new generation employees’ characteristics, give full play to their advantages, and stimulate their innovative behaviors to facilitate enterprise development. In addition to caring about leadership style, leaders should simultaneously focus on cultivating employees’ psychological capital to create more advantages and value for enterprises resulting from innovation ( Luthans and Youssef, 2007 ). Encouraging, recognizing, respecting, including, and giving fair treatment to employees are all excellent qualities of new-era leaders that can promote employee innovation.

This article has some deficiencies. The questionnaires about inclusive leadership, psychological capital, and innovative behavior were all filled in by the same person, which may cause homologous data errors. However, we have made some efforts to lower potential biases. Before we collected the data, we re-ordered the questionnaire items according to the independent and dependent variables, preventing the raters from guessing the causal relationships between variables; thus, we reduced the possible bias caused by having the same person provide answers for both independent and dependent variables ( Kozlowski and Klein, 2000 ). After data collection, Harman’s test was conducted. The analytic results of the un-rotated factor solution showed that the variance of the principle component is 30%, which was less than 40%, and thus, no dominant single factor was extracted, indicating little potential for common variance bias. Additionally, our samples are all survey data from Zhejiang Province, China. This could raise some concern about generalizability. Although the currently surveyed city is representative of other similar cities in China, generalizability to other cities in other countries is indeed a common concern because the results might vary for cultural, institutional, or societal reasons. Follow-up studies could expand the scope of the survey and increase the number of samples to ensure the generalizability of the research conclusions.

Data Availability

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

Y-CF conceived and designed the research and provided guidance throughout the entire research process. J-YC wrote and supplemented the English manuscript. M-JW and C-YC participated in the data processing and writing of the Chinese Papers.

This research was supported by the National Social Science Fund Project of China (Grant No. 15BGL099), the Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Science Planning Fund Project (Grant No. 14YJA630008), and the Zhejiang Province Soft Science Project (Grant No. 2018C25024).

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abdullan, N. H., Shamsuddin, A., Wahab, E., Abdul, H., and Nor, A. (2015). Organizational commitment as a mediator between leadership and innovative behavior. Adv. Sci. Lett. 21, 1550–1552. doi: 10.1166/asl.2015.6098

CrossRef Full Text

Al-Asfour, A., College, L., and Lettau. (2014). Strategies for leadership styles for multi-generational workforce. J. Leadersh. Account. Ethics 11, 58–69.

Google Scholar

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 10, 123–167.

Baron’s, R. M., and Kenny’s, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bass, B. M., and Bass, R. (2009). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Byron, P. K. (2008). Exploring the role of hope in job performance: results from four studies. J. Organ. Behav. 29, 785–803. doi: 10.1002/job.492

Cameli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., and Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: the mediating role of psychological safety. Creat. Res. J. 22, 250–260. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2010.504654

Chen, D. J. Q., and Lim, V. K. G. (2012). Strength in adversity: the influence of psychological capital on job search. J. Organ. Behav. 33, 811–839. doi: 10.1002/job.1814

Chen, M. S., and Zhou, S. (2018). Research on the impact of participatory management on the loyalty of new generation employees: a modeled mediating effect model. Indus. Technol. Econ. 37, 12–18. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-910X.2018.10.002

Cheng, K., and Lin, Y. H. (2017). Organizational support consistency and turnover intention of the new generation employees: mediating effect of employee happiness. J. Psychol. 49, 1570–1580.

Choi, S. B., Hanh Tran, T. B., and Seung-Wan, K. (2016). Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Person-Job Fit. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H., and Park, B. I. (2015). Inclusive leadership and work engagement: mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. social behavior and personality: an international journal, 2015, 43. inclusive leadership and work engagement: mediating roles of affective organizational commitment and creativity. Soc. Behav. Pers. 43, 931–944.

Dreu, C. K., and West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:1191. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.6.1191

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 44, 350–383.

Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 32, 5–28. doi: 10.1177/0021886396321001

Fang, Y. C. (2014). The Influence of inclusive leadership on team performance-based on the mediating role of employees’ self-efficacy. Sci. Res. Manag. 5, 152–151.

George, J. M., and Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 605–622. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.25525934

Goldsmith, A. H., Darity, W., and Veum, J. R. (1998). Race, cognitive skills, psychological capital and wages. Rev. Black Polit. Econ. 26, 9–21. doi: 10.1007/s12114-998-1001-0

Goldsmith, A. H., Veum, J. R., and Darity, W. J. (1997). The impact of psychological and human capital on wages. Econ. Inq. 35, 815–829. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1997.tb01966.x

Hakimian, F., Farid, H., and Ismall, M. N. (2016). Importance of commitment in encouraging employees’ innovative behavior. J. Bus. Admin. 8, 70–83. doi: 10.1108/apjba-06-2015-0054

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

Han, Y., and Yang, B. Y. (2011). Real-life leadership, psychological capital and employee innovation behavior: the role of leadership member exchange. Manag. World 12, 78–86.

Hansemark, O. C. (1998). The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on Need for Achievement and Locus of Control of reinforcement. Inter. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 4, 28–50. doi: 10.1108/13552559810203957

Hassan, S. Y., Bashir, M., Abrar, M., Baig, S. A., and Zubair, A. (2015). The impact of transformational leadership on employee’s creative self-efficacy: the moderating role of cognitive diversity. Inter. J. Inform. Bus. Manag. 7:251.

Hirak, R., Peng, A. C., Carmeli, A., and Schaubroeck, J. M. (2010). Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance:the importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. Leadersh. Q. 2012, 107–117. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.009

Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive Leadership: The Essential Leader-Follower Relationship. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis Group.

Hou, H. F., Li, Y. P., and Tu, Y. D. (2014). The structure, measurement, and impact of the new generation’s work values on performance. J. Psychol. 46, 823–840.

Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., Van der Zee, K. I., and Jans, L. (2014). Inclusion: conceptualization and measurement. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 370–385. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2011

Jin, M., Lee, J., and Lee, M. Y. (2017). Does leadership matter in diversity management? assessing the relative impact of diversity policy and inclusive leadership in the public sector. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 38, 303–319. doi: 10.1108/lodj-07-2015-0151

Jing, B. F. (2015). Influence of inclusive leadership on employees’ creativity-based on the dual mediating effect of intrinsic motivation and psychological availability. Techn. Econ. 34, 27–32. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-980X.2015.03.005

Kleysen, F. R., and Street, C. T. (2001). Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. J. Intellect. Capital 3, 284–296. doi: 10.1108/eum0000000005660

Kozlowski, S. W. J., and Klein, K. J. (2000). “A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes,” in Multilevel Theory, Research and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions , eds K. J. Klein and S. W. J. Kozlowski (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), 3–90.

Lee, Y., and Chang, H. (2006). Leadership style and innovation ability: an empirical study of taiwanese and cable companies. J. Am. Acad. Bus. 9, 2l8–223.

Li, F. L. (2017). Research on the influence mechanism of psychological capital on employees’ innovative behavior. Financial Problem Res. 12, 138–143. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-176X.2017.12.020

Li, Y. P., and Hou, H. F. (2012). The new generation employees’ work value structure and its influence on work behavior. Econ. Manag. 34, 77–86.

Li, Y. P., and Xu, J. (2013). The new generation employees: the influence of psychological and behavioral characteristics on organizational socialization. Econ. Manag. 35, 61–70.

Liu, B., Qi, L., and Xu, L. A. (2017). cross-level impact study of inclusive leadership on employee feedback seeking behavior. J. Manag. 14, 677–685. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-884x.2017.05.005

Liu, Y., and Shi, J. T. (2009). Research on the interaction effect of organizational innovation climate and incentive preference on employees’ innovative behaviors. Manag. World 10, 88–101.

Liu, Y., Zhu, W., and Zhao, S. M. (2016). Research on the influence of inclusive leadership on the relationship of employment relationship and employees’ active behavior. Manag. Rep. 10, 1482–1489.

Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 23, 695–706. doi: 10.1002/job.165

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., and Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 60, 541–572. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006847

Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., and Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: beyond human and social capital. Bus. Horizons 47, 45–50. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007

Luthans, F., and Youssef, C. M. (2007). Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mao, M. X. (2008). Research on the Influence Mechanism of Leadership Style on Organizational Innovation. Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., and Lowell, E. L. (1976). The Achievement Motive. Oxford: University of Oxford.

Nembhard, I. M., and 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. J. Organ. Behav. 27, 941–966. doi: 10.1002/job.413

Nishii L. H., and 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 turn-over relationship. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1412–1426. doi: 10.1037/a0017190

Odoardi, C., Montani, F., Boudrias, J. S., and Battistelli, A. (2015). Linking managerial practices and leadership style to innovative work behavior: the role of group and psychological processes. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 36, 545–569. doi: 10.1108/lodj-10-2013-0131

Pundt, A. (2015). The relationship between humorous leadership and innovative behavior. J. Manag. Psychol. 30, 878–893. doi: 10.1108/jmp-03-2013-0082

Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., et al. (2017). Inclusive leadership: realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 28, 190–203. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002

Ryan, J. (2007). Inclusive leadership: a review. J. Educ. Admin. Found. 18, 92–125.

Şahin D. R.,Çubuk D., and Uslu T. (2014). The effect of organizational support, transformational leadership, personnel empowerment, work engagement, performance and demographical variables on the factors of psychological capital. EMAJ Emerg. Markets J. 3, 1–18.

Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 37, 580–607. doi: 10.5465/256701

Shabir, M., Abrar, M., Baig, S. A., and Javed, M. (2014). The contribution of workplace incivility and psychological capital toward job stress. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Stud. 4:2.

Sharifirad, M. S. (2013). Transformational leadership, innovative work behavior, and employee well-being. Glob. Bus. Perspect. 1, 198–225. doi: 10.1007/s40196-013-0019-2

Song, D., Yuan, Z. Y., and Zhang, W. W. (2011). A cross-level empirical study on the impact of entrepreneurial orientation on employee innovation behavior: using innovation atmosphere and psychological empowerment as mediators. Sci. Res. 29, 1266–1273.

Staples, H. L. (2014). The Generational Divide: Generational Differences in Psychological Capital. Ph.D. thesis, University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX.

Tierney, P., and Farmer, S. (2004). The pygmalion process and employee creativity. J. Manag. 30, 413–432. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2002.12.001

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., and Lance, C. E. (2010). generational differences in work values: leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. J. Manag. 36, 1117–1142. doi: 10.1177/0149206309352246

Wang, S. H., Xu, B., and Peng, J. S. (2013). The influence of organizational atmosphere perception on employees’ innovative behavior-based on the mediating effect of knowledge sharing willingness. Sci. Res. Manag. 34, 130–135.

Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., and Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 18, 293–321. doi: 10.5465/amr.1993.3997517

Yuan, X. P. (2007). The historical enlightenment of Chinese civilization. J. Peking Univ. 44:5.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Zhang X. Z., and Zhou W. C. (2013). An empirical study on the relationship between transformational leadership and employees’ innovative behavior-based on the mediating role of psychological capital. J. Nanjing Univ. Posts Telecomm. 15, 43–49.

Zhong, L. F. (2007). Review and prospect of psychological capital research. Prog. Psychol. Sci. 3, 482–487.

Zhou, J., and George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 682–696.

Zhu, Y., and Wang, Y. F. (2011). The relationship between entrepreneur psychological capital and employee’s innovative behavior: the strategic role of transformational leadership and knowledge sharing. Adv. Mater. Res. 282–283, 691–696. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.282-283.691

Zubair, A., Bashir, M., Abrar, M., Baig, S. A., and Hassan, S. Y. (2015). Employee’s participation in decision making and manager’s encouragement of creativity: the mediating role of climate for creativity and change. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 8, 306–321. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2015.83033

Chinese Version of the Inclusive Leadership Scale

Encouragement and recognition to employees.

(1) In my work, the leaders actively ask my opinions and thoughts. (2) The leaders recognize the contribution of my efforts. (3) For my work, the leaders encourage me to come up with plans and ideas. (4) The leaders recognize our cooperation and exchanges across departments. (5) The leaders openly recognize the achievements of employees.

Respect and Fair Treatment for Employees

(6) The leaders treat us equally and always adhere to certain commonly recognized principles. (7) The leaders focus on fairness and justice when managing teams. (8) The leaders treat employees fairly.

Failure Tolerance

(9) When employees make mistakes, the leaders express emotional understanding and suggestions for improvement. (10) The leaders can rationally accommodate our mistakes. (11) When something went wrong, the leaders do not arbitrarily blame us without understanding the details.

Keywords : new generation employees, inclusive leadership, psychological capital, innovative behavior, China

Citation: Fang Y-C, Chen J-Y, Wang M-J and Chen C-Y (2019) The Impact of Inclusive Leadership on Employees’ Innovative Behaviors: The Mediation of Psychological Capital. Front. Psychol. 10:1803. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01803

Received: 11 May 2019; Accepted: 22 July 2019; Published: 06 August 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Fang, Chen, Wang and Chen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Yang-Chun Fang, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative behavior: Perceived organizational support as a mediator

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation School of Management, Shandong University, Jinan, P. R. China

Roles Data curation, Funding acquisition, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Roles Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Kings College, The University of Aberdeen Business School, Old Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, The United Kingdom

• Lei Qi, 
• Bing Liu, 
• Xin Wei, 
• Yanghong Hu

• Published: February 28, 2019
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212091
• Reader Comments

Despite extensive literature on leadership and its impact employee innovative behavior, few studies have explored the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior. To address this gap, this study aimed to investigate how inclusive leadership influenced employee innovative behavior by examining perceived organizational support (POS) as a mediator. We used multi-wave and multi-source data collected at 15 companies in China to test our theoretical model. Results revealed that inclusive leadership had significantly positive effects on POS and employee innovative behavior. Furthermore, POS was positively related to employee innovative behavior and partially mediated the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior. We discussed implications and limitations of this study as well as avenues for future research.

Citation: Qi L, Liu B, Wei X, Hu Y (2019) Impact of inclusive leadership on employee innovative behavior: Perceived organizational support as a mediator. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0212091. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212091

Editor: Yannick Griep, University of Calgary, CANADA

Received: October 10, 2016; Accepted: January 28, 2019; Published: February 28, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Qi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was financially supported by the National Social Science Foundation (14BGL073), Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Research Planning Fund Project (19YJA0056), Shandong Social Science Planning Fund Program (17CLYJ26), Major Program of Humanities and Social Sciences of Shandong University (17RWZD21), Bing Liu as the funding recipients.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In a competitive environment characterized by globalization, shortened product life cycles, and rapid technological change [ 1 ], innovation has been regarded as the crucial facilitator for growth, performance, and competitiveness [ 2 ]. Managers and scholars have increasingly emphasized the important influence of innovation on competitive advantage, sustainable development, and long-term organizational success [ 3 ]. A key issue of innovation was that an individual had an innovative, novel and creative idea and developed that idea beyond its initial state [ 4 ]. Given that employee innovation in organizations was of critical importance to an organization, it was vital to identify factors that could stimulate employee innovative behavior [ 5 ], which referred to employee’s engaging innovative activities [ 6 , 7 ].

Investigators have sought to identify determinants of employee innovative behavior [ 6 , 8 ]. Many determinants have been explored, such as knowledge sharing [ 9 ], human resource (HR) management practices [ 10 ], innovation climate [ 11 ], absorptive capacity [ 12 ], and perceived innovation job requirements [ 7 ]. Among all these determinants of innovative behavior, leadership has been arguably noted as the most important factor that influenced creativity and innovation in organizations [ 13 ]. Several studies indicate that transformational leadership [ 1 , 14 ], ethical leadership [ 15 ], and paternalistic leadership [ 16 ] significantly influenced employee innovative behavior. Despite those studies has not yet examined the effect of inclusive leadership on innovative behavior. Inclusive leadership was quite different from other kinds of leadership [ 17 ]. Inclusive leadership closely matched the determinants of innovation at the workplace, some of which were inclusiveness, openness, uniqueness, and support for innovation [ 17 , 18 ]. Studying the impact of inclusive leadership on innovative behavior could provide further insights into extant literature regarding the effect of leadership on innovative behavior. Unfortunately, published empirical studies on the link between inclusive leadership and innovation performance are rare.

The current study developed novel theoretic insights on how employee innovative behavior was affected by inclusive leadership. Innovation involved change [ 19 ], which by its nature (i.e. diversity) required inclusiveness, openness, and support. Business organizations capable of fostering an innovation-supportive work environment may realize a sustainable competitive advantage in innovation [ 20 ]. To examine the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior, we proposed employees’ perceived organizational support (POS) of employee, as a mediator for this relationship. POS, which was valued as assurance that would be available from the organization when needed to carry out their job effectively and deal with stressful situations [ 21 , 22 ]. Researchers have highlighted the importance of inclusive leadership [ 17 ] and organizational support [ 23 ] in stimulating employee innovative behavior. However, few studies focused on the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior through employee’s POS [ 24 ].

In the current study, we contributed to extant research [ 17 , 23 ] by investigating the influence of inclusive leadership on employee innovative behavior through POS. Our study aimed to make two major contributions to understanding the role of leadership behavior in developing organizations’ competitive advantage [ 25 , 26 ]. First, our study contributed to research on organizational leadership by emphasizing the role of inclusive leadership, as “research into inclusion is still in its infancy” [ 27 ]. Second, our study extended previous studies on the antecedents of employee innovative behavior by examining how organizational contextual factors such as inclusive leadership (Time 1) and POS (Time 2) influenced employee innovative behavior (Time 2). This research echoed the call for “future studies that may adopt a longitudinal approach to study the effect of change in supervisors’ leadership style on employee creativity” [ 11 ]. Also, this study responded to call for rich and nuanced conceptual research in the innovation field, especially concerning the role of employees’ cognition in motivating their innovative behavior.

Theoretical Foundation and research hypotheses

Inclusive leadership.

The concept of inclusive leadership was originally proposed in the field of management by Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) [ 24 ], which was defined as the “words and deeds by a leader or leaders that indicate an invitation and appreciation for others’ contributions.” Subsequently, Hollander (2009) [ 28 ] defined inclusive leadership as a win-win situation with a common goal and vision of interdependent relationships. Hollander emphasized the important role of followers in this relationship and paid attention to their perception of leadership. Ospina (2011) [ 29 ] described an inclusive leader as valuable, and someone who accepted staff at all levels in the organization and was responsible for results. Furthermore, an inclusive leader was considered as playing a key role in forming an inclusive organization. Specifically, inclusive leadership contained three dimensions: (1) Leaders tolerated employees’ views and failures by listening attentively to their views, rationally tolerated their errors, and provided encouragement and guidance to support staff when they make mistakes. (2) Leaders recognized and trained employees by respecting and focusing on employee training and praising achievements rather than displaying jealousy [ 30 ]. (3) Leaders treated employees fairly, considered their needs and interests, showed a fair attitude towards employees, and ensured that they share earnings.

Compared with the other forms of leadership that may be conceptually related, inclusive leadership held unique nature of acceptance, belongingness, uniqueness, and inclusiveness [ 18 ]. Specifically, transformational leadership focused on motivating and developing employees based on the organization’s needs [ 31 ], and transformational leadership centered in the leader, without active employee involvement, reciprocal influence, and rewards [ 28 ]. In contrast, inclusive leadership emphasized on accepting employees for who they were, allowing them to contribute their unique abilities and views, and encouraging them to involve in organizational activities. Although, servant leadership focused on helping employee grow and succeed [ 32 ], inclusive leadership focused on tending to member’s needs for work group openness and availability. While empowering leadership focused on leading by example, sharing power, teaching and coaching [ 33 ] inclusive leadership facilitated the perception of inclusiveness and accessibility. Based on above differences, the overlap between inclusive leadership and existing conceptualizations of leadership was minimal, and other types of leadership could not fully capture key tenets of inclusive leadership [ 18 ]. Despite the unique and critical role of inclusive leadership in the leadership research, to date, few studies have investigated the link between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior. The aim of this paper was to investigate how supportive conditions in an organization affected employee innovative behavior through POS. Fig 1 showed the research model developed for this purpose.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212091.g001

Employee innovative behavior

Innovative behavior was considered as a series of activities pertaining to idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization for new technologies, processes, techniques, or products [ 34 – 36 ]. Employee innovative behavior focused on the innovation process, (i.e., engaging in innovative activities) rather than the innovation outcome (i.e., new products) [ 6 , 37 ], which was beyond the concept of creativity [ 7 ]. In this study, we followed Shin, Yuan, and Zhou’ (2017) research, “draw from the literature about innovative behavior in general, including the literature on creativity”, to develop our theoretical model [ 7 ]. For decades, several types of leadership have been demonstrated to influence employee innovative behavior in organizations [ 38 ]. Amabile et al. (1996) proposed that freedom, supervisory encouragement, and organizational support were closely related to innovation [ 39 ].

From theoretical perspectives, inclusive leadership can stimulate employee innovative behavior in multiple ways. First, inclusive leaders can energize employees to engage in innovative process [ 40 ]. Conger and Kanungo considered inclusion as a process of improving internal perception of organization employees and as a concept related to intrinsic motivation [ 41 ]. Increasing motivation leaded to more involvement in innovative behavior [ 40 , 42 ]. Second, based on organizational support theory [ 43 ], employees’ work outcomes relied on organizational support. Inclusive leaders were able to provide resources including information, time, and support necessary for innovative behavior [ 44 ]. “Leader inclusiveness is directed toward encouraging and valuing the different viewpoints of diverse members within team interactions” [ 27 ]. When employees were supported by their leader, they would get more autonomy and freedom to engage in innovative behavior [ 45 ]. Boren argued that inclusion was based on employees’ basic trust, explaining that managers use various skills to improve the capacity and potential of subordinates’ behavior [ 46 ]. In addition, Randel et al (2018) stated that the inclusive leadership might facilitate organization employees perceiving belongingness (by supporting team members, ensuring justice and equity, and sharing decision-making) in the organization while maintaining their uniqueness (by encouraging diverse contributions and helping team members fully contribute) within the organization as they fully contribute to the organization processes and outcomes of innovation (i.e. creativity) [ 18 ]. Third, inclusive leaders could serve as role models for innovative behaviors [ 47 ]. Nembhard and Edmondson suggested that leader inclusiveness was positively related to engagement in quality improvement work [ 24 ]. Carmeli et al. argued that inclusive leadership demonstrated a specific relationship exhibited through openness and harmony in communication, accessibility, and offering [ 17 ]. Through appropriate inclusiveness, leaders created an environment where employees had a greater sense of responsibility [ 48 ], had more decision-making autonomy, and received more information and feedback as well as support and encouragement [ 49 ]. General openness, availability, and accessibility facilitated employee involvement in innovative work [ 17 ]. Innovative behavior was often noted as “discretionary behavior” [ 34 ]. Inclusive leadership’s unique features reshaped followers’ perception of support and enhanced more innovative behavior [ 18 ]. Thus, based on organizational support theory [ 43 ], we formulated the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Inclusive leadership is positively related to employee innovative behavior.

Perceived organization support

Eisenberger and Stinglhamber proposed that POS referred to "employees develop global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their wellbeing" (1986: 501) [ 43 ]. POS was grounded in the theory of organizational support, underlining the importance of viewing employees as valued organizational assets [ 23 ]. New areas of research emphasized organizational support as an important factor affecting employees’ willingness to contribute to the organization [ 50 ]. Inclusive leadership represented an important organizational aspect that can assist in creating a more innovation-supportive work environment [ 17 , 51 ], but our conceptual understanding of the supportive mechanisms linking inclusive leadership to employees’ innovative behavior remains underdeveloped. In this section, the mediating role of POS will be clarified. How inclusive leadership affects POS will be clarified first, and subsequently the effect of POS on innovative behavior will be explained.

According to organizational support theory [ 43 ], employee’s perception of favorable treatment received from the organization, such as supervisor support, should increase POS [ 52 ]. Supervisors in leadership roles played a key role in providing organizational resources and rewards for subordinates, and therefore, should be regarded as an important source of organizational support [ 53 ]. Inclusive leader could provide benefits that subordinates could make use of. Supportive behaviors from inclusive leader helped subordinates perceive that their contributions were valued and their well-being were cared about [ 54 ], and should enhance POS. Thus, supportive behaviors from inclusive leaders should be closely related to POS, and we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: Inclusive leadership is positively related to POS.

Employees’ innovative behavior can be stimulated by fostering a work context in which employees feel supported to generate, promote, and realize inventive ideas and concepts [ 55 ]. Innovation and spontaneous problem solving may additionally be associated with perceived support [ 55 , 56 ]. First, on the basis of social exchange theory [ 57 ], POS should elicit the norm of reciprocity, leading to employee’s obligation to help the organization to achieve its goals, as well as the expectation that increased efforts on the organization’s behalf would be noticed and rewarded [ 52 ]. Employees who perceived high levels of POS were more likely to feel a duty of caring for the organization’s development and help it achieve its goals. Luksyte and Spitzmueller (2016) indicated that “high levels of POS create a sense of obligation to contribute to the organization” [ 23 ]. This responsibility enhanced employees’ affective commitment to the organization and the will of retention. For instance, according to the social exchange theory (the principle of reciprocity), employees’ sense of responsibility and emotional commitment would help decrease absenteeism and increases altruistic behavior [ 58 ]. Barksdale and Werner (2001) argued that POS could motivate employees to better fulfill in-role behavior [ 59 ]. Similarly, employees who felt more POS experience a better needs–supplies fit, and increased creativity [ 23 ]. Also, Bammens claimed that organizational care, which was closely related to POS, positively predicted innovative behavior [ 20 ]. Conversely, when employees perceived low support of organization, their involvement in innovation would be lessened [ 55 ]. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: POS is positively related to employee innovative behavior.

Inclusive leadership could influence employee innovative behavior through POS. According to social exchange theory [ 57 ], the more desired inclusion, permission, and resources employees received from the leader and organization, the higher the POS and the more motivated and obliged they were to reciprocate by being more engaged in innovative behaviors. Employees were highly attuned to leaders’ behavior and examined leader actions for information on what was expected and acceptable in organizational interactions [ 60 ]. To assist them in unleashing their innovation potential, employees may require a general sense that leaders showed support [ 4 , 51 ]. On the one hand, if leaders care about subordinates’ needs and feelings, provided positive feedback, encourage employees to express their own ideas and develop their skills, and helped them solve job-related problems, organizational loyalty and employees’ interest in work will greatly improve, increasing their enthusiasm to explore and innovate [ 61 ]. Furthermore, inclusive leadership could inspire a sense of responsibility: When employees received support from the organization, their confidence increases, they demonstrate more voluntary acts, and actively use their potential to fulfill the organization’s mission, further increasing their abilities and awareness of innovation [ 62 ].

If a leader was inclusive and welcomed challenges, employees were likely to perceive more organizational support and became more innovative, for perceived support for innovation was an important source of innovation or creativity [ 63 ]. Leadership can affect innovative behavior through its influence on employees’ perceptions of a climate supportive of innovation [ 1 ]. Inclusive leaders, by intellectually stimulating their subordinates, championing innovation, and tolerating attempts, helped establish a climate that employees felt encouraged and energized to explore innovative approaches in their work. Fitzpatrick claimed that the best way to support progressive care nurses was inclusive leadership [ 64 ]. Inclusive leadership delivered to employees the unique perception of support from leaders that should increase employee innovative behavior. Taken together, POS increased the likelihood that employees would develop more creative solutions and approaches to address issues [ 55 ]. Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: POS mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior.

The hypothesis model of our study is illustrated in Fig 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212091.g002

Research design

Sample and procedures.

Data were collected among employees and supervisors from 15 service-based organizations such bank, law offices, Sinopec, and retailing stores in 6 cities in China. Initial contacts with these companies were via connections to current and former MBA students. We used three ways to reduce the common bias [ 65 ]: First, a two-wave survey with a three-month interval was conducted. Using different time intervals for data collection helped to minimize the impact of memory and common method variance bias and enhanced the robustness of findings by collecting data on predictors and outcomes separately [ 65 ]. Second, a two-source survey with employee-supervisor matched was adopted, because employee innovative behavior rated by supervisors was much more valuable. Third, during the process of questionnaire design and distribution, strict program control was carried out in this study. Each survey was conducted with the help of human resources department. At the beginning of the survey, 401 subordinates and their matching supervisors were randomly selected, and all employees had the freedom to decide whether to participate in this study. Every participant received a red pocket with a random amount of money (5–20 RMB) for each questionnaire completed. To ensure participants’ confidentiality and decrease their fear of exposure and risk of liability, surveys were placed into a sealed envelope and respondents were instructed to return the completed questionnaires directly to the researchers. Anonymity was assured. The survey questionnaires were coded before being distributed.

Time 1 (T1), we administered questionnaires to 401 employees in 127 teams, who were asked to provide their demographic information (e.g., age, gender, education, and tenure) and perceived inclusive leadership. We received usable responses from 364 employees in 116 teams, for a response rate of 90.77%. Three months later, we conducted the second survey (T2), 330 employees who participate in the T1 survey and 112 supervisors were available. Employees were asked to report their perceived organizational support and supervisors were asked to rate their subordinates’ innovative behavior. 329 questionnaires reported by employees and 105 questionnaires rated by supervisors were collected. As a result, we obtained completed questionnaire from 226 employees (a response rate of 56.36%) and 75 matched supervisors (a response rate of 66.96%) after excluding missing data. Of the sample, 61.10% of the respondents were female; most (81%) were below 35 years old; 54% employees got bachelor degree, 41.20% employees got college degree or below, 4.80% employees got master degree or above; the tenure of employees ranged from 1 year to 10 years (40.7% of employees worked 1–3 years, 18.6% of employees worked 4–6 years, 18.1% of employees worked 7–10 years).

Ethics approval

An ethics approval was not required as per institutional guidelines and national laws regulations because there’s no unethical behaviors existing in the research procedures. We just conducted questionnaire survey and were exempt from further ethics board approval since our research did not involve human clinical trials or animal experiments. Also, the content of the questionnaire did not involve any sensitive or personal privacy or ethical and moral topics. In the first page of the questionnaire, information on consent procedures was included and participants were notified that consent was to be obtained by virtue of survey completion. Meanwhile, we informed that participants about the objectives of the study and guaranteed their confidentiality and anonymity. The way to fill in the questionnaire is to take out the secret system, which can further ensure rights of people who answer the questionnaire. All the participants were completely free to join or drop out the survey. Only those who were willing to participate were recruited.

To maximize the validity and reliability of the measurement tools, we used existing scales published in top journals. The original scales were all written in English. Thus, we followed the back translation procedures recommended by Brislin (1980) [ 66 ] to translate the measures. A management scholar who was fluent in both English and Chinese translated the items from English into Chinese. We then asked another bilingual management professor to translate the items from Chinese back into English. We also asked a management researcher to check the English and Chinese translations, and any discrepancies in the translation procedure were solved through discussion. Furthermore, before finalizing the formal questionnaire and survey, a pre-survey was conducted to guarantee the appropriateness of the questionnaire design and diction to the study context. The questionnaire was then revised based on feedback regarding the pre-survey. Unless otherwise noted, we used a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = totally disagree” to “5 = totally agree” to assess each measure.

Inclusive Leadership: We assessed inclusive leadership using a nine-item scale that were developed by Carmeli et al. (2010) [ 17 ] (T1, rated by employee). A similar approach was used by Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, and Schaubroeck (2012) [ 67 ] and Choi, Tran, and Kang (2016) [ 68 ]. A sample item was: “The manager is open to hearing new ideas.” The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the scale in this study was 0.927, indicating that the scale has good reliability.

Perceived organizational support (POS): The eight-item scale by Eisenberger (1986) [ 43 ] was employed to measure POS (T2, reported by employees). The scale has been used by Edwards and Peccei (2015) [ 69 ] and Zumrah and Boyle (2015) [ 70 ]. A sample item was: “My organization takes pride in my accomplishments at work.” The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the scale in this study was 0.952, indicating that the scale had good reliability.

Innovative behavior: The nine-item scale by Janssen (2000) [ 34 ] was used to measure employee innovative behavior (T2, rated by supervisor). The scale had been used by Janssen (2003) [ 58 ] and Agarwal, Datta, Blake-Beard, and Bhargava (2012) [ 71 ]. The scale measured employee innovative behavior based on three aspects of “ideas put forward,” “promotion of ideas,” and “apply the idea of.” A sample item was: “Creating new ideas for difficult issues (idea generation).” The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the scale in this study was 0.951, indicating that the scale had good reliability.

Control variables: Based on previous research [ 72 – 74 ], we selected gender, age, education, and tenure (which reflects work domain expertise) [ 75 , 76 ] as main control variables for their probable association with employee perceived organizational support and innovative behavior.

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 presented descriptive statistics and correlations. Consistent with the hypotheses of this study, as shown in Table 1 , inclusive leadership was positively related to employee innovative behavior (r = 0.302; p <0.01) and POS (r = 0.697; p <0.01), and POS was positively related to employee innovative behavior (r = 0.279; p <0.01).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212091.t001

Tests of hypotheses

To test hypothesized main effects and mediation effect, we followed Hayes’ approach [ 77 ] and used the bias-corrected bootstrapping approach, including 95% bootstrap confidence intervals using 5,000 bootstrap samples in Mplus version 7.4 software [ 78 ]. Unstandardized coefficient estimates for the model were presented in Table 2 . After controlling gender, age, education, and tenure, inclusive leadership was positively related to employee innovative behavior (β = 0.339**, SE = 0.081, p <0.01, 95%CI = [0.183, 0.503]). Because the CI did not contain zero. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported, indicating that when employees perceived more inclusive leadership, they demonstrated more innovative behavior. Inclusive leadership was positively related to POS (β = 0.843**, SE = 0.068, p <0.01, 95%CI = [0.710, 0.977]), supporting Hypothesis 2. This result indicated that when employees perceived more inclusive leadership, they experienced more POS. POS was positively related to employee innovative behavior (β = 0.244**, SE = 0.068, p <0.01, 95%CI = [0.112, 0.381]), supporting Hypothesis 3. This result demonstrated that when employees perceived more organizational support, they demonstrated more innovative behavior. Inclusive leadership was positively related to employee innovative behavior through POS (β = 0.206**, SE = 0.059, p <0.01, 95%CI = [0.092, 0.327]). The result indicated that POS mediated the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212091.t002

Conclusion and discussion

In this study, we aimed to investigate how and why inclusive leadership influenced employee innovative behavior based on organizational support theory and social exchange theory. Consistent with organizational support theory, we found that inclusive leadership was positively related to employee innovative behavior and POS mediated the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior. That is, when employees perceived that leaders showed more inclusiveness to their new ideas, technologies, and processes, they perceived being more valued and cared about by the organization and thus, increased their innovative behavior.

Theoretical implications

The current study made several important theoretical contributions. First, the findings suggested that inclusive leadership had an important effect on employee innovative behavior, which was consistent with research demonstrating the importance of supervisory support in innovative behavior [ 5 , 51 , 75 ]. This empirical work addressed important gaps in the innovation literature with respect to supportive determinants of employee’ innovative behavior [ 72 ]. Inclusive leadership was likely to act as an innovation–facilitating force. Inclusive leadership promoted employee innovative behavior by increasing POS and encouraging employees intellectually to bring forth alternative ways to solve existing problems or improve existing procedures.

This research also advanced the inclusive leadership literature by complementing the classic social exchange theory with fresh insights from the organizational support theory framework [ 50 ], thereby broadening its theoretical scope to account for support-based outcomes that hinge on employees’ POS. Although the concept of inclusive leadership has received increasing attention in recent years, inclusive leadership remained a new concept without consensus on the nature of the construct or its theoretical underpinnings. This lack of theoretical and practical consensus hampered the utility of inclusive leadership [ 79 ]. Our study was one of few studies to investigate the influence of inclusive leadership on POS and employee innovative behavior, which responded to the view that “the inclusion construct and its underlying theoretical basis need greater development” [ 79 ] and “much work remains to be done to advance theory related to our understanding of inclusive leadership” [ 18 ].

Second, our results highlighted the role of POS as a mediator for the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior. This finding contributed to the literature in that it showed POS as a mediator through which inclusive leadership influenced employee innovative behavior. In the past research, studies had not yet explored the mechanism underlying the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior from the perspective of organizational support. The current study complemented previous research by revealing how inclusive leadership increased employee innovative behavior through POS. Our findings were consistent with a view from Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davislamastro’s saying that “perceived support might be associated with constructive innovation” [ 55 ].

Third, support for the positive effect of inclusive leadership on employee innovative behavior proposed an important role in addressing determinants of innovation. Advancing employee innovative behavior were critical to organization’s competitiveness and long-term success. Although an organization’s employees had idiosyncratic attributions and perceptions of leadership styles, our findings illustrated how an organization and its leaders can advance employee innovative behavior through inclusive leadership.

Practical implications

In a dynamic environment, as organizational competiveness relied on employee innovative behavior, it was vital to identify how leaders can stimulate their follower innovation [ 51 ]. The theoretical model proposed in this paper could inform managers of how to improve employee innovative behavior. As mentioned, creativity/innovation was risky, requiring employees to change and act differently and leaders to tolerate and accept deviation from conventional practices. Since inclusive leadership was demonstrated to promote employee innovative behavior in this way, managers should develop skills of inclusive leadership in order to encourage employees engage in innovative behavior more. We suggested that leadership training programs could help leaders realize the importance of inclusiveness, openness and quip them with necessary skills to provide support for employees.

Moreover, the finding that POS mediated the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior suggested the need of paying attention to the underlying mechanism through which inclusive leadership stimulated followers’ innovative behavior. Managers should consider ways such as showing openness and inclusiveness to employees’ new ideas, technologies, and products, and valuing their efforts to increase employees’ POS. Furthermore, managers may offer other kinds of support, such opportunities, resources, and autonomy to employees to stimulate more innovative behavior.

Finally, given that people naturally tended to maintain their status quo, it was of critical importance to identify factors that could help employees to overcome this tendency and engage in more innovative behavior. Our findings suggested that inclusive leadership was a driver of employee innovative behavior.

Limitations and future research

Several limitations of this study should be mentioned. While mentioning the study’s limitations, we simultaneously suggested directions for future research. The first limitation was that the sample size from one organization is small, which may reduce generalization, thus limiting the use of results pertaining to significant relationships. The current findings may provide conservative estimates of hypotheses testing, suggesting potentially stronger effects in industries where innovation are much higher (e.g., technology). Future research could advance our knowledge by replicating this study’s results across diverse industries using a larger sample size.

Second, the current study explored only one mechanism between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior, although other mechanisms may exist (e.g., psychological empowerment). Furthermore, it could be helpful investigate boundary conditions that might influence the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation. Future research could examine other types of employee performance such as task performance.

Supporting information

S1 questionnaire. questionnaire i-iii..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212091.s001

S1 Dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212091.s002

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 18. Randel A E, Galvin B M, Shore L M, Ehrhart K H, Chung B G, Dean M A, et al. Inclusive leadership: realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Hum Resour Manage R, 2017:S1053482217300517.
• 19. King N. Innovation at work: The research literature. In West MA, Farr JL (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work & Organizations. 1990; (5): 15–59. Chichester, England: Wiley.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 28. Hollander EP. Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. New York, America: Taylor Francis Group; 2009.
• 39. Amabile TM. Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Colorado, Ameirica: Westview Press; 1996.
• 41. Conger J, Kanungo R. Charismatic leadership in organizations. California, America: Sage Publications; 1998.
• 46. Boren LA. Current policy development in special education: The regular education initiative and the inclusion movement: A review of the literature; 1994.
• 48. Borman WC, Motowidlo SJ. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual Performance. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1993.
• 52. Kurtessis J N, Eisenberger R, Ford M T, Buffardi L C, Stewart K A, Adis C S. Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory:. J Manage, 2015,0149206315575554.
• 57. Blau PM. Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1964.
• 63. Scott S G, Bruce R /. Creating innovative behavior among R&D professionals: the moderating effect of leadership on the relationship between problem-solving style and innovation. 1994.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

The Key to Inclusive Leadership

• Juliet Bourke
• Andrea Titus

Overcome unconscious bias using humility and empathy.

Inclusive leadership is emerging as a unique and critical capability helping organisations adapt to diverse customers, markets, ideas and talent. For those working around a leader, such as a manager, direct report or peer, the single most important trait generating a sense of inclusiveness is a leader’s visible awareness of bias. But to fully capitalize on their cognizance of bias, leaders also must express both humility and empathy. This article describes organizational practices that can help leaders become more inclusive and enhance the performance of their teams.

What makes people feel included in organizations? Feel that they are treated fairly and respectfully, are valued and belong? Many things of course, including an organization’s mission, policies, and practices, as well as co-worker behaviors.

• Juliet Bourke , PhD, is a professor of practice in the School of Management and Governance, UNSW Business School, UNSW. She is the author of Which Two Heads Are Better Than One: The Extraordinary Power of Diversity of Thinking and Inclusive Leadership . Email her at  [email protected]
• AT Andrea Titus is a consultant in Human Capital, Deloitte Australia, and PhD candidate in organizational psychology at Macquarie University.  Email her at [email protected]

Partner Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

How Inclusive Leadership Can Help Your Practice Adapt to Change

Krista w. bowers.

Assistant professor, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

Michaela Robertson

Practice facilitator, Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

Michael L. Parchman

Professor, Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Interim Center Principal Investigator, VERDICT Research Center, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio

We are in the third year of a study to improve diabetes care in 40 small primary care clinics. Practice facilitators are working closely with the physicians and staff in these clinics to implement the chronic care model (CCM), 1 a forerunner of the patient-centered medical home.

One dominant theme that has emerged from physician and staff surveys and from observations by practice facilitators is this: When leadership is inclusive of all team members, changes are easier to implement. The purpose of this article is to share observations and findings from the first 20 clinics that are related to the concept of leader inclusiveness and its importance in small primary care clinics working to improve patient care.

What is leader inclusiveness?

The inclusive leader is one whose words and deeds invite contributions from others and who demonstrates appreciation of those contributions. The inclusive leader encourages all members of the group to speak up, especially those who would not usually have their voices heard. 2

Inclusive leadership creates a culture of psychological safety. The current health care model is a hierarchical system made up of members with different perceived status levels. Some members, such as physicians, have high status while others, such as receptionists, have lower status. This difference in status can influence beliefs about speaking up to offer ideas, discuss concerns, or ask questions.

Research has shown the importance of psychological safety in creating an environment in which team members, especially lower-status team members, will feel comfortable speaking up. In psychologically safe environments, people believe that if they make a mistake others will not penalize them or think less of them or their ability to do their job. Team members who feel safe also feel open about asking for help. 2

How is leader inclusiveness related to chronic illness care?

We divided the clinics in our study into two groups based on physician and staff responses to questions on the Assessing Chronic Illness Care survey: one group whose scores reflect full implementation of the CCM (scores of 9 or higher) and another group whose scores reflect that the CCM is not fully implemented (scores less than 9). 3 Clinics where the physicians and staff feel that an inclusive leadership style has created an environment where everyone’s point of view is valued, where communication is open, and where time and space are allowed for discussion are more likely to have fully implemented the CCM (see “ The importance of inclusive leadership ”).

As the chart shows, practices in the study that displayed characteristics of inclusive leadership were more likely to have achieved full implementation of the chronic care model (CCM).

How can you incorporate these ideas into your practice?

Over the past three years, we have worked with these clinics to promote leader inclusiveness and an environment where everyone feels safe to speak up. Here are some strategies that our research indicates are effective:

Huddles are a quick, inexpensive, and easy way to improve communication and invite new ideas within the clinic. All members of the team participate, and all are invited to share ideas. Huddles can also improve efficiency through improved communication and teamwork. Time spent in the huddle prepares the entire team to provide the best possible care for that day’s patients by initiating activities such as preparing resources, reviewing medications, checking lab results, or following up on prior consults. (To learn more, see “ Huddles: Improve Office Efficiency in Mere Minutes ,” FPM , June 2007.)

Here are two stories from the clinics in the study:

Dr. B found that huddles facilitate brainstorming and creative problem solving when challenges emerge. During the H1N1 outbreak, for instance, she asked the staff for ideas about how to handle the increase of patients needing acute visits and the need to keep these patients secluded in a small office. Her staff came up with the idea of a drive-through “carhop” approach. The patients would call to let the staff know they were coming to be evaluated for H1N1. The staff would go out to the car, interview the patient, do a quick examination, and give treatment without the patient ever leaving the car.

Dr. M reports that after trying huddles for a few weeks she felt that she no longer had time in the morning to continue them. When she told her staff she no longer wanted to do huddles, they revolted and told her that they must continue. The staff had quickly noticed that huddles allowed them to improve their communication and ability to quickly solve problems as a team.

Regular meetings with clear rules

Most of the clinics in our study were not holding staff meetings when we began the study. To share information with the staff, doctors or administrators would go to each team member individually to pass on the message. This process was time consuming and didn’t always leave staff members with a clear understanding of the information or a chance to ask for clarification. Reserving time for regular clinic meetings is crucial. These scheduled meetings need to have a set of rules that support the sense that this is a time to share ideas and ask questions free of criticism. During these meetings, everyone’s ideas should be considered and discussed.

In the study, practice facilitators used several methods to model effective meeting strategies. During the first meeting with the entire group, the facilitator would help the group develop ground rules for each meeting. The ground rules were unique for each clinic and reflected the specific needs of the group. Examples of meeting ground rules might be that meetings will always start on time, that everyone in the group is encouraged to participate, that all participants are considered equal in this discussion, that all participants must keep an open mind and listen to each other, and that all ideas are held up for consideration, reflection, and inquiry.

The practice facilitators often modeled appropriate behavior during facilitation meetings by demonstrating how to express appreciation, valuing the comments of all members of the group, and reminding participants not to criticize the ideas of other team members. Another method was to have two facilitators work together during a meeting to clearly demonstrate effective behaviors. The facilitators would meet for a short huddle before the meeting to discuss the topics that needed to be covered. During the staff meeting, they would show the clinic how to plan ahead, use time wisely, and communicate ideas or clinic changes effectively, with all members’ input valued and respected. (For more on effective meetings, see “ The Makings of a Good Meeting ,” FPM , November/December 2007, and “ How to Make Your Meetings More Productive ,” FPM , July/August 2003.)

Reserving time and space for reflection and conversation

As shown in the chart on page 10 , setting aside a separate meeting specifically for reflection is crucial. In clinics where the CCM was fully implemented, staff were almost three times as likely to agree strongly that leadership provided “time and space necessary to discuss changes to improve care.” During this time the medical team takes an in-depth look at their current clinical structure, identifies areas they would like to improve, and works together to create solutions. Given all the demands of the clinic day, this activity will not occur unless the team leader makes a conscious effort to reserve time for this activity and expects the team members to be present and to participate fully in the discussion and improvement projects.

During the study, the facilitation sessions forced clinics to take time for reflection and conversation. For some clinics this was the first time that all members of the team had sat down together as a group. This time creates opportunities for new ideas to come from all members and leads to creative brainstorming of improvements to patient care. The clinics in our study have found this time to be crucial for the clinic to continue moving forward.

Here is another story from one of the clinics in the study:

Dr. M’s staff noticed that patients frequently had questions about the clinical staff, what to expect during the visit, and how best to prepare for their visit. After several sessions of reflection and discussion, they decided to develop a brochure that covered this basic information and helped prepare patients to come to their visit with their medications and questions for the physician. Together they have created an informative brochure that is given to all patients and mailed to new patients before their first appointment.

Cross-training staff for a broader understanding of all roles

Many clinics struggle with staff turnover and providing coverage for absent staff members. One solution is to train staff in multiple or all areas and have them rotate roles for a time to learn the details of each position. This technique allows team members to develop a deeper understanding of each person’s role in the clinic, which may increase respect and mutual support among team members. This technique also allows other staff members to look at the position with a fresh perspective and perhaps develop new ways to complete a task.

The inclusiveness imperative

In our current health care system, clinics are constantly reacting to change. The small primary care clinic must find ways to identify areas of improvement, work as a team to create solutions, and implement changes to the practice. We believe that an essential ingredient in this process is leader inclusiveness, especially with the current need to redesign primary care.

Acknowledgments

Funding support: This study is supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R 18 DK 075692) and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, follows the CONSORT guidelines, and is registered per ICMJE guidelines: Clinical Trial Registration number: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00482768","term_id":"NCT00482768"}} NCT00482768 . The views expressed are those of the investigators and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Author disclosure: no relevant financial affiliations disclosed

Contributor Information

Krista W. Bowers, Assistant professor, Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Michaela Robertson, Practice facilitator, Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Michael L. Parchman, Professor, Department of Family & Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Interim Center Principal Investigator, VERDICT Research Center, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio.