The role of inclusive leaders on team innovation and team organizational citizenship behavior, through information elaboration and CSR perceptions

(1)

1

The role of inclusive leaders on team innovation and team

organizational citizenship behavior, through information

elaboration and CSR perceptions

María Constanza García Bayona (10826777) University of Amsterdam

Faculty of Economics and Business Leadership and Management Track Supervisor: Dr. C.K. Buengeler Second reader: Dr. A.E. Keegan Amsterdam, 2015

(2)

2

Statement of Originality

This document is written by María Constanza García who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

3

1 Introduction

Malcolm Forbes, a famous publisher, once wrote: “Diversity: the art of thinking independently together”. This phrase reflects a challenge that organizations face today as they need to manage diverse teams to accomplish synergy, integrating individual contributions to produce a superior performance. “Globalization and demographic change are increasingly altering the composition of the workforce” (Janz, Buengeler, Eckhoff, Homan, & Voelpel, 2012, p.164), and therefore increasing the demographic diversity of teams. As the percentage of women in the workforce continuously increases (Schneid, Isidor, & Kabst, 2014) and birth rates lower while workforce ages (DeLong, 2004; Kearney & Gebert, 2009), teams are becoming more heterogeneous in their gender and age composition. Work teams are increasingly relevant for the success of organizations (Kozlowski & Bell (2003), therefore one of the key issues of today’s organizations is to manage demographic diverse teams to enhance their performance (Joshua-Gojer & Allen, 2012). Consequently it is important to understand how demographic diversity (age and gender diversity) affects team performance.

Although diversity as an academic study field is vast (Farndale, Biron, Briscoe, & Raghuram, 2015), and research has extendedly tried to address how diversity affects teams’ performance, the link between these two variables is still not completely clear (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Diversity research has worked traditionally with two different positions (Raghuram & Garud, 1996; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). On the one hand, diversity has been considered beneficial for team performance since the existence of different viewpoints in the team can enhance its functioning (Antonio, Chang, Hakuta, Levin, & Millem, 2004; Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991). On the other hand, diversity has been conceived as harmful for team functioning as salient subgroup categorization

(7)

7 processes can impede members from effectively working together (Jehn, Northcraf, & Neale., 1999; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). These seemly contradictory results highlight that the link between diverse teams and performance deserves further research (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007).

Some researchers have tried to reconcile the two traditional perspectives (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Webber & Donahue, 2001) and have proposed that a single type of diversity may elicit both positive and negative effects on team performance (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). According to Van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007) various factors can affect the link between demographic diversity and team performance, however there is lack of empirical attention to the processes that are presumed to underlie this relationship. These authors also point out how research should pay more attention to the moderators that affect the processes that lie between demographic and other forms of diversity and team performance (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Therefore, this study will contribute to these gaps and analyze mediators and a moderator expected to influence the relationship between demographic diversity and team performance.

Most of the studies analyzing surface level diversity and performance have focused on task performance (activities that contribute to the technical core) and only few studies have analyzed contextual performance (activities that contribute to the social network and psychological climate to support technical core) (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit., 1997, Schneid et al., 2014). Since teams by definition include a social dimension (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003), it is important to take into account this aspect when measuring its overall performance, therefore it is relevant to measure not only task but also contextual performance. Especially in demographically diverse teams where observable attributes of team members may be strongly associated with teams’ social network and

(8)

8 psychological climate (Choi, 2009), it is significant to measure contextual performance (Schneid et al., 2014).

Phenomena as fierce global competition and rapidly changing marketplaces, make innovation increasingly necessary for companies to remain competitive (West, 2002). Innovation is the introduction of new and improved ways of doing things at work (West, 2002) and hence it can be considered a relevant task performance that can be directly or indirectly related to the companies’ technical core (Motowidlo et al., 1997). Organizations are increasingly relying on teams to innovate (West, Borrill, Dawson, Brodbeck, Shapiro, & Haward, 2003). Especially diverse teams have been proposed to bring about solutions that are innovative given their broadened pool of approaches and perspectives. However, research has not been able to reveal a consistent link between diversity and innovation. Therefore it is important to understand how demographically diverse teams can use their wide pool of resources to reach innovation, and under which circumstances this will be the case. Consequently, it seems necessary that these teams share perspectives and information, attend to the inputs of others, discuss and integrate the different ideas (Mannix & Neale, 2005). All of these actions combined are known as information elaboration (Mannix & Neale, 2005) and therefore this study proposes it is a as a necessary process for demographically diverse teams to benefit from diversity and reach an innovative performance. However, according to the social categorization perspective, diversity may lead to categorization and intergroup biases that harm team functioning and may impede team innovation (Jehn et al., 1999; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Murnighan & Conlon, 1991). Therefore, if a team wants to fully benefit from demographic diversity it should overcome categorization barriers and the role of leaders can be crucial for that purpose. Scholars have remarked the role of leaders as highly influential in shaping team processes and outcomes (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2002). However,

(9)

9 the linkages among leadership and outcomes of team diversity have not been widely explored (Nishii & Mayer, 2009). An inclusive leader promotes uniqueness and belongingness in a team (Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart, & Singh, 2011), and thus is expected to encourage cooperation and participation and to reduce possible negative outcomes of social categorization (e.g., more relational conflict or less commitment). For these reasons, this study proposes an inclusive leader as a moderator of the relationship between demographically diverse teams and performance, specifically team innovation.

In addition to globalization and rapidly changing marketplaces, companies are also confronting downsizing processes (Motowidlo et al., 1997). The combination of these phenomena requires that firms raise the extra efforts of their employees and teams, namely Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs), in order to improve organizational performance and success (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach et al., 2000). This study considers OCB as a pertinent way to measure contextual performance due to its voluntary and cooperative character (Podsakoff et al., 2000). The aggregated OCB’s of team members will contribute to the psychological climate of the team and thus later on contribute to the performance of its technical core.

Team members’ engagement to the organization is relevant for a demographically diverse teams in order to reach OCB. Researchers have shown that CSR perceptions of employees are an effective way of shaping employees attitudes and behaviors (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998; Fu, Ye, & Law, 2014; Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006), and that are linked with organization identification (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, Fu et al., 2014), affective commitment (El Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck, K., & Igalens, 2015; Turker, 2009;) and even OCB (Riketta, 2005). The recruitment and fair treatment of diverse workforce have been proposed to increase CSR perceptions of the employee (Shen, D’Netto, & Tang, 2010). The characteristics and context

(10)

10 of their team can be seen by its members as a representation of the organization as a whole and thus influence their perceptions of it. Consequently, the presence of diverse members in their team may lead to members’ perceptions of a diversity oriented company, that recruits different individuals regardless their demographic characteristics (Shore et al., 2011) and gives Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) (Mazur, 2013; Shen et al., 2010). For these reasons, the presence of diverse people in a team can be expected to increase their perceptions of CSR of the organization, with positive effects on their willingness to contribute to the organization in broader ways, as visible in OCB. The inclusive leader also plays a crucial role in this process since he/she will be a signal for the employees how the company manages and cares on diversity and thus will influence their perceptions of employee oriented CSR. Additionally, this leader is expected to reinforce organization identification and create an inclusive climate.

Concluding, this research sets out the relationship between demographic diversity and team performance (task and contextual). This study will focus in the link between demographic diversity and team innovation (task performance) through information elaboration. As well as the relationship between demographic diversity in a team and OCB (contextual performance) through the members’ perceptions of CSR of the organization. An inclusive leader is expected to positively influence these processes and thus to be beneficial to the demographic diversity and performance link. The previous reasoning can be summarized in the research model proposed in Figure 1.

(11)

11

(12)

12

2 Literature Review

2.1 Team Diversity and Team Performance

2.1.1 Team Diversity

Work teams have been proven to be crucial for the success of organizations (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). According to Kozlowski & Bell (2003), teams can be defined as “collectives who exist to perform organizationally relevant tasks, share common goal(s), interact socially, exhibit task interdependencies, maintain and manage boundaries, and are embedded in an organizational context”. Additionally, demographic change is inevitably producing a variation on the composition of the workforce in the organizations (Janz et al. 2012). As diversity in the workplace increases, the challenge for a fluent social interaction in teams to perform tasks and accomplish common organizational goals is even more challenging. Consequently, the effective management of diverse teams is increasingly viewed as an essential success factor for firms to reach competitiveness (Joshua-Gojer & Allen, 2012).

Diversity can be defined as ‘differences between individuals on any attribute that may lead to the perception that another person is different from oneself (Van Knippenberg et al. 2004, p. 1008; Mannix & Neale, 2005). Nevertheless, diversity as a concept includes different typologies and operationalizations (DiTomaso & Post, 2007; Harrison & Klein, 2007; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). The most common typologies of diversity differentiate between demographic visible attributes (e.g. gender, race/ethnicity, age) that may be less job related and non-visible or less easily discernable attributes (e.g., educational background and personality) that may be more job related (Jehn et al. 1999, Milliken & Martins 1996; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin., 1999; Webber & Donahue, 2001). Although, various researchers have studied how these typologies may have influenced in the processes and performance of diverse teams (Jehn et al. 1999; Pelled et al., 1999),

(13)

13 according to Van Knippenberg & Schippers (2007), there is not enough support to affirm that these diversity typologies alone explain positive or negative effects of diversity in a team.

However, demographic change in the workforce is inevitable for most companies (Jackson, 1991; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998, Van Knippenberg et al., 2004) hence it is relevant to further understand how this type of diversity may affect team performance and which other factor may also influence this relationship. Various scholars have pointed the management of gender diverse teams as an issue universally relevant (Nishii, 2012) since the proportion of women in the workforce has been steadily growing across the globe force in the last decades (Ali, Kulik, & Metz, 2011; Cotter, Hermsen, & England, 2008). As work teams become more gender diverse, it is more relevant to understand the effect of gender diversity on team outcomes (Schneid et al., 2014) Similarly, researchers have pointed out how age diversity is one of the most important diversity dimensions for business success in the years to come (Janz et al., 2012). An aging phenomena is happening in the society as fertility rates have diminished in the last years and people is living longer. Age diversity on the workforce has increased as a result of the low birth rates and aging workforces (DeLong, 2004; Kearney & Gebert, 2009). Consequently, the management of age diverse teams has become a relevant issue for the success of organizations. For the previous reasons, this study will consider gender and age as pertinent dimensions to be analyzed as demographic diversity. Furthermore, the question here is how companies can effectively deal with demographic diversity in their teams so that they can improve their performance. To further advance on that question, it is important to understand what can be comprehended as team performance therefore that will be the aim of the next section.

(14)

14

2.1.2 Team Performance

Research has broadly addresses the outcomes that teams can produce, however “the range of outcomes considered in the extant literature and the subtle nuances used to differentiate them makes neat categorizations difficult to reach a consensus” (Mathieu, Mynard, Rapp, & Gibson., 2008). However, the performance notion from Hackman (1987) can be useful to have a general definition. This author states team performance as “a product or outcome of team action that satisfies external constituencies” (Hackman, 1987). Constraints originated from the team’s context and its task, lead to different dimensions of performance that may be relevant for different types of teams (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). In that sense, it would be relevant in the analysis of team performance to take into account task performance and contextual performance, which were proposed by Borman & Motowidlo (1993).

Task performance can be defined as work activities that contribute to the organization's technical core either directly (part of its technical process) or indirectly through activities that service and maintain the technical core (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Example of task performance can be product knowledge or closing sales. Team innovation can be considered a relevant task performance, since it contributes to the technical core of companies in a direct or indirect way depending on the company or team.

Contextual performance can be defined as the activities that promote the viability of the organizational social network and enhance the psychological climate in which technical core is embedded (Motowidlo et al., 1997; Schneid et al., 2014). As Motowidlo (1997) suggests, “contextual activities include volunteering to carry out task activities that are not formally part of the job and helping and cooperating with others in the organization to get tasks accomplished (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is considered to be a

(15)

15 pertinent concept to measure contextual behavior due to its voluntary and cooperative character. Even Borman & Motowidlo (1993) used OCB as one of the concepts to build their construct of contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997).

Most studies regarding the effects of gender and age diversity have addressed mainly the task performance of teams (Schneid et al., 2014) since its outcomes could be more visible and quantifiable. However, the measure of contextual performance is also relevant in team research for various reasons. First, phenomena as global competition and companies downsizing make increasingly necessary for companies to raise extra efforts of employees and teams (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). Second, research has shown that experienced supervisors consider contextual performance as part of their subordinates overall appraisal. Third, as teams by definition have a social interaction, it seems logical to measure this dimension in their performance. Finally, especially for demographically diverse teams seem rational to analyze contextual performance, since the observable attributes of team members may be strongly associated with teams’ social network and psychological climate (Choi, 2009; Schneid et al., 2014). Consequently this research will measure both types of diversity. The specific measures will be team innovation in task performance and team OCB in contextual performance, and these concepts will be further explained in later in this document.

After presenting an overview of the notions of demographic diversity and team performance, the next step is to understand how these two concepts can be linked and what other factors may influence this relationship. Consequently, the next section will present the more traditional perspectives on this field.

(16)

16

2.1.3 Perspectives: Team diversity and team performance

The notion of diverse workforce subsumes different possible effects on team performance and have even been called a ‘double-edged sword’ (Milliken & Martins, 1996). There have been usually two main research traditions on research in team work diversity and performance: the social categorization perspective and information/decision- making perspective (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).

On the one hand, according to the Social Categorization perspective, heterogeneity in a team leads to processes of categorization and intergroup biases that harm team functioning and performance (Brewer, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The similarities and differences are used by group members to make categorizations of oneself and others and later on this categorizations lead to the formation of subgroup within the team among similar members. People tend to like, trust and favor more in-group members compared to out-group members (Brewer, 1979; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and especially fellow group members that are similar rather than dissimilar (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Furthermore, these subgroups within a heterogeneous work team give rise to intergroup biases. This would result in more relational conflicts (Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999), less group cohesion (O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989), less commitment (Riordan & Shore, 1997; Tsui, Egan & O’Reilly, 1992) and less identification with the team (Wagner, Pfeffer, & O’Reilly, 1984). All of these Affective Reactions to social categorization and intergroup biases will affect overall performance in heterogeneous teams (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Moreover according to Social Categorization perspective, categorizations that are more observable and have been used before in other contexts (e.g., gender and age) are more likely to be used.

(17)

17 On the other hand, according to the Information/decision-making perspective diversity in a group can lead to creative and innovative performance, due to the presence of a larger pool of resources (knowledge, skills, abilities and perspectives) and the integration and reconciliation of different positions that stimulate thinking (Bantel & Jackson 1989). Furthermore, the need to reconcile conflicting viewpoints may force the group to more carefully process information and thus prevent an early consensus or “group think”. Additionally, exposure to diverging perspectives may lead to more to more creative and innovative ideas and solutions (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Bantel & Jackson, 1989; De Dreu & West, 2001).

However, according to Van Knippenberg et al. (2004), diversity in a work team may elicit both, positive and negative effects on performance contingent on factors that affect information-processing and social categorization processes (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Due to inconsistent results of previous studies, these authors try to reconceptualize and integrate information/decision making and social categorization perspectives in a proposed model: categorization-elaboration model (CEM) (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). While traditional research has analyzed the studied information/ decision-making processes and social categorization processes in isolation, the CEM suggests that these processes interact (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).

The authors of CEM propose that certain conditions affect the likelihood of positive/negative effects of diversity in team performance. They suggest that task characteristics and requirement influence the probability for Information Elaboration to happen, such as strong information requirements of the task, group motivation toward the task and the task ability of members (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). In addition, Van Knippenberg et al. (2004) propose that is intergroup bias and not social categorization per se what affects team performance. These

(18)

18 authors propose that after social categorization, intergroup bias are inspired by threats or challenges to the value or the distinctiveness of sub-group identity (i.e., threats to individuals’ self-views). Intergroup biases negatively influence affective– evaluative reactions (e.g., relational conflicts, group cohesion, commitment and identification) of team members and thus disrupt elaboration of task relevant information.

In conclusion, CEM suggests that to better understand the link between group diversity and performance is best to consider both perspectives (Social Categorization and Information/decision-making) (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Additionally a relevant message from Van Knippenberg et al. (2004), is that each type of diversity may yield to positive and negative effects on team performance depending on the contingencies (Raghuram & Garud, 1996; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). According to Van Knippenberg & Schippers (2007), there is a need for empirical research to understand the processes that mediate the group diversity - performance link and the moderators that may affect them. Consequently, the next section will introduce a moderator expected to influence the team demographic diversity and team performance relationship.

2.2 Inclusive leader

A single type of diversity – demographic in this case- can be associated with positive and negative effects on team performance (Raghuram & Garud, 1996) and moderators are related with this opposing results of diversity (Buengeler & Den Hartog, 2015; Joshi & Roh, 2009). In the search of these moderators, researchers have highlighted the relevance of leadership. For instance, Sidberry (2002), have recognized that the most important factor influencing the success of diversity is leadership and Janz et al. (2012) have highlighted the leader role as essential in making age diverse teams work. The behaviors of the team leader have been shown to influence the internal dynamics of the group and to affect team climate (Edmondson, 1999; Nembhard & Edmondson,

(19)

19 2006). In order to capitalize on diversity, a leader should be able to help the group overcome barriers associated with heterogeneity (e.g., intergroup biases and affective reactions) and to motivate the group members to embrace their differences and cooperate. The current study proposes that an inclusive leader will be able to contribute in that sense. This section will explain the notion of inclusive leader and the following sections will clearly state the moderating effect on two different team processes.

In this research an Inclusive Leader is understood as one that is in line with inclusion philosophy and values and also one that engages in behaviors that promote inclusion in the team and contribute to create a climate for inclusion. This notion of Inclusive Leader is based on the framework proposed by Shore et al. (2011), integrating contextual antecedents that impact employee perceptions of work group inclusion (Inclusive Leadership, Inclusiveness Practices and Inclusiveness Climate). Correspondingly, in this research is pertinent to use the main concept of inclusion based on Shore’s framework (2011). Accordingly, inclusion is understood as “the degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness” (Shore et al., 2011, p 1265). Uniqueness is defined as “the need to maintain a distinctive and differentiated sense of self” belongingness is defined as the need to form and maintain strong, stable interpersonal relationships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

An inclusive leader stimulates belongingness feelings of his/her team members (Shore et al., 2011) and thus promotes group identification, which is the perception of oneness with or belonging to the group (Mael& Ashforth, 1992). This is relevant, since members who feel highly identified with their team are more likely to cooperate more and exert a bigger effort on behalf of the team (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Polzer, Milton, & Swann, 2002).

(20)

20 An inclusive leader promotes and defends the uniqueness of each member of the team, which is relevant to fully benefit from the individual contributions of team members. This leader, treats members fairly contributing to affirm their identities and stimulating them to cooperate (Tyler, 1999; Buengeler & Den Hartog, 2015).

Moreover, an inclusive leader may defend the uniqueness of each subgroup within the team. Consequently, the categorizations and subgroups that develop in a team may be legitimately recognized and not suppressed. Research has showed that trying to suppress categorization may result in stronger intergroup biases than recognizing these categorizations ( Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Van Leeuwen & van Knippenberg, 2003). An inclusive leader will value the uniqueness or distinct role of each subgroup (reducing distinctiveness threat) and will treat fairly each subgroup (reducing threats to value) and these two conditions have been proven to reduce intergroup biases (Dovidio, Gaertner, and Validzic, 1998). In that sense and in line with CEM (Van Knippenberg et al, 2004) an inclusive leader will contribute to reduce intergroup biases and thus contribute to diminish negative affective reactions (e.g., relational conflict). Empirical evidence suggests that in inclusive climates, diversity (gender) is associated with lower levels of relational conflict Nishii (2012). Furthermore, this role of the inclusive leader is particularly relevant in demographically diverse teams, since the observable differences among members are more likely to trigger categorizations that can later yield on intergroup bias.

Finally, it is important to say that an inclusive leader is expected to be a pertinent moderator to be considered in the analysis, since his/her presence may reduce intergroup biases outcomes such as relational conflict or less group identification that may affect other team processes and states and later on team performance. Furthermore, the presence of an inclusive leader can influence other group processes and states that mediate the relationship between a demographically

(21)

21 diverse team and its performance. The next sections will further explain the moderating role of Inclusive Leader in processes and states that lead to team innovation (task performance) and team OCB (contextual performance).

2.3 Team demographic diversity, inclusive leader, information

elaboration and team Innovation

2.3.1 Demographic diversity, information elaboration and team innovation

Team Innovation can be defined as the intentional introduction and application of processes, products, or procedures that are new to a team and are designed to benefit its work (West & Farr, 1989). In a simpler definition innovation is the introduction of new and improved ways of doing things at work (West, 2002). In that sense team innovation can be considered a relevant task performance since it contributes to improve the technical core (Motowidlo et al., 1997). Depending on the team and organization, this contribution can be direct (e.g., design company, research and development unit) or indirect (e.g., production company, administrative department). Innovation is relevant for organizations and their teams, since it is increasingly been considered a strategic advantage that is essential to survive and develop in the rapidly changing market place (West, 2002)

According to Hülsheger, Anderson and Salgado (2009), various variables can influence the likelihood of innovation in a team. These authors state that team input variables (e.g., composition, size or longevity of the team and task interdependence) and team process variables (e.g., participative safety, support for orientation, task orientation, cohesion, communication and conflict) can influence team innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009). In addition, according to West et al. (2003), it is also relevant to take into account how leaders influence and maintain conditions for team innovation however, this issue has not been widely explored. In that order of ideas, this

(22)

22 research will analyze specifically the influence of a team input variable (demographic diversity), a team process variable (information elaboration) and the role of the leader (inclusive leader) on team innovation.

Demographically diverse teams have the potential to reach team innovation since they possess a wide pool of resources. The heterogeneity of members provides the team with different opinions, perspectives and abilities that may translate into more creative and innovate solutions. Research has suggested that attitudes and values may be subject to gender differences (Papamarcos and Sama, 1998). Similarly, scholars have shown how age has significant effects on individual behavior and cognition (Pelled et al., 1999; Schaie, 1996).

However, in line with Van Knippenberg et al. (2004), it is not the availability of resources per se but the use and integration of them what can potentiate the performance of demographically diverse teams. In that order of ideas, for a team to benefit from demographic diversity and reach an innovative performance, its members must share perspectives and information, attend to the inputs of others, discuss and integrate the different ideas (Mannix & Neale, 2005). All these actions together conform the process defined as Information Elaboration (Mannix & Neale, 2005, Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). In other words, information elaboration in a team is necessary in order to reach innovation.

Previous research suggests that although diverse teams have potential for innovation they may face barriers that can frustrate success (Hackman, 1990; West et al., 2003). Groups may encounter obstacles when they trying to combine information and integrate their ideas and which impede the unique contribution of its different members (Tjosvols, Yu, & Hui, 2004). Especially teams with a demographically diverse composition may confront many obstacles that develop from social categorization. Attributes such as age and gender, are more easily discernible than

(23)

deep-23 level differences and are more likely to be used for categorization (Ely & Thomas, 2001, Van Knippenberg et al., 2004).

Moreover, social categorization in demographically diverse teams may evolve in intergroup biases that translate into negative affective reactions such as more relational conflict, fewer communication and less group cohesion (e.g., Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled, 1996, Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Team members may present less commitment and group identification, and thus will cooperate less with the team (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Polzer et al., 2002). As a result the information elaboration in the team may be disrupted, since member will not be motivate to share their unique perspectives nor to discuss with other members to integrate and create ideas.

Therefore, the challenge for demographically diverse teams is to simultaneously avoid the pitfalls associated with intergroup categorizations while fully utilize the perspectives of their different category memberships to be innovative (Polzer et al, 2002). The role of an inclusive leader may be crucial in this challenge as will be explain in the following section.

2.3.2 The moderating role of inclusive leader

To avoid the pitfalls associated demographic diversity in a team and understand better whether this typology of diversity can also at times benefit information elaboration and consequently team innovation, it is important the identification of conditions under which demographic diversity in a team may be positively related with information elaboration and team innovation. Based concept of inclusive leader previously exposed, this research proposes that the effect of demographic diversity in a team and information elaboration depends on the presence of an inclusive leader.

(24)

24 Since an inclusive leader defends uniqueness and belongingness in a team and reduces intergroup biases’ outcomes (as explained before), his/her presence is expected to be positively associated with the information elaboration in a team. A leader that promotes inclusion in the group is expected to increase the participative safety for team members. Participative safety refers to the extent to which team members feel that they have influence and that are free to speak and perceive a nonthreatening interpersonal climate (West & Farr, 1990). An inclusive leader defends uniqueness and thus helps to remove obstacles to full participation and contribution of each individual in the team (Roberson 2006) and thus encourages members’ participation and team interactions (Shore et al., 2011). Through direct invitation or as appreciation (i.e., a positive, constructive response), this leader motivates members to embrace their differences, participate and contribute (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004, Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006).

An inclusive leader defends belongingness and group identification so he/she will promote the construction and conservation of strong and stable interpersonal relationships in the work team (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). This leader will contribute to create an inclusive climate which has been showed to diminish relational conflict (Nishii, 2012). Consequently, the intergroup climate will be safe, and when team members feel a nonthreatening interpersonal climate (intergroup safety), they are more inclined to come up with new ideas, due to a lack of concern about negative judgment by others (West & Farr, 1990).

From all the previously exposed reasoning it can be expected that in a team demographic diversity may disrupt information elaboration in the team (due to intergroup biases that translate into negative affective reactions). However, in the presence of an inclusive leader obstacles for information elaboration are removed and therefore demographic diversity is positively related to information elaboration. Consequently, this research hypothesizes the following:

(25)

25 H1. An inclusive leader moderates the effects of demographic diversity (a. Gender and b. Age) in a team and information elaboration in a team. Consequently, demographic diversity is positively related to information elaboration when inclusive leader levels are high and negatively related information elaboration when inclusive leader levels are low.

2.3.3 The mediating role of information elaboration

This study proposes that the interaction between demographic diversity in a team and an inclusive leader affects information elaboration, which in turn affects team innovation. As previously explained a team with demographic diversity in a team encounters obstacles derived from intergroup biases when trying to integrate and elaborate new information (Tjosvols, Yu, & Hui, 2004). However, the presence of an inclusive leader can provide the conditions to overcome those barriers. An inclusive leader will encourage participation and communication among team members, thus facilitating the exchange of unique and different viewpoints, ideas and perspectives. This leader will also contribute to create a safe social climate and group identification, which will motivate members to expose new ideas and cooperate in the discussion and elaboration of nove l solutions in the team. In that sense the inclusive leader will contribute positively to the team functioning and will facilitate the information elaboration in the team.

As previously mentioned, information elaboration has important implications for team innovation. In line with the Information/decision-making perspective (Bantel &Jackson 1989) and the CEM (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), information elaboration is expected to be positively associated with innovative team performance. The exposure to different viewpoints and perspectives and the need to reconcile them, stimulate thinking and force the team to carefully process and integrate information which leads to more innovative ideas and solutions (Ancona &

(26)

26 Caldwell, 1992; Bantel & Jackson, 1989; De Dreu & West, 2001). Teams that openly deliberate their diverse perspectives are more likely to be creative and generate more alternatives and novel solutions than groups that do not (Amabile (1996), Polzer et al., 2002). Therefore, information elaboration in a team is necessary in order to reach innovation.

Summarizing, in a demographic diverse team when inclusive leader levels are low, barriers associated with intergroup biases disrupt information elaboration and consequently the team cannot reach team innovation. Contrastingly, in a demographic diverse team when inclusive leader levels are high, information elaboration takes place and consequently the team fully benefit from its wide pool of resources and reaches innovation. Thus, this research will test the following hypothesis:

H2. Demographic diversity (a. Gender and b. Age) in a team is related to team innovation via conditional indirect effects, such that the interaction between demographic diversity and inclusive leader is related to information elaboration, which in turn is related to team innovation.

2.4 Demographic diversity, inclusive leader, CSR perceptions and

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

2.4.1 Demographic diversity, CSR perceptions and OCB

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

As it was previously explained, in the analysis of the effects of demographic diversity on team performance it is relevant to consider not only task but also contextual performance (the activities that contribute to the social network and psychological climate of the organization (Motowidlo et al., 1997). In addition, Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is considered to be a pertinent concept to measure contextual behavior due to its voluntary and cooperative character. Organ

(27)

27 (1988), defined OCB as an extra-role discretionary behavior not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, intended to help others in the organization and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. In that sense, the aggregated OCB of team members creates a favorable psychological climate that supports a team to perform its core tasks.

In general, research agrees that OCB is a multi-dimensional construct (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, 2000; Williams Anderson, 1991). Scholars have identified a wide variety of dimensions of OCB however Podsakoff et al. (2000), integrate them in seven common dimensions: Helping Behavior, Sportsmanship, Organizational Loyalty, Organizational Compliance, Individual Initiative, Civic Virtue, and Self Development. Helping behavior or Altruism involves voluntarily helping others with, or preventing the occurrence of work related problems (Organ, 1988). Sportsmanship is defined as the willingness to tolerate working conditions or possible inconveniences (Organ, 1990).While, Organizational Loyalty entails promoting and protecting the organization and its objectives and remaining committed to it even under adverse condition (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997). Organizational compliance consists on the employee’s internalization of the organization rules and procedures (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Smith et al., 1983,). Whereas, Individual Initiative (Moorman & Blakely, 1995) or Conscientiousness (Organ, 1988), involves engaging voluntarily in task related behaviors in a level that exceeds the minimal required or expected. Civic Virtue refers to a commitment to the organization as a whole, remaining attentive and proactive when participating in organizational activities (Organ, 1988). Finally, Self-development, consists on voluntarily developing one self’s knowledge, skills and abilities (George and Brief, 1992).

Additional to dimensions, it is relevant to present some of the more widely identified antecedents to OCBs. As Podsakoff et al. (2000), expose in their meta- analysis of OCB, research

(28)

28 has found affective employee characteristics that are associated with OCB, such as satisfaction, organizational commitment, perceptions of fairness, and perceptions of leader supportiveness (Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983). Additionally, there are also task characteristics (e.g., ask feedback, task reutilization, and intrinsically satisfying tasks) and organizational characteristics (e.g., group cohesion) that may influence OCBs (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1995; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Bommer., 1996). Finally, some leader behaviors, mostly transformational and transactional behaviors have been analyzed as antecedents of OCBs (Podsakoff, McKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1996), however other behaviors such as inclusiveness remain scarcely studied and need to be carefully investigated (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Demographic diversity and OCB

Workforce or team demographic composition have not been widely empirically analyzed as an antecedent of OCB, although researchers have theorized demographic variables such as age and gender should be associated with OCB (Kidder & McLean Parks,1993; Podsakoff et al., 2000) due to the different values, interests and mindsets. Furthermore, demographic diversity in the workforce have not been usually studied as an antecedent of OCBs, however some researchers have evidenced the management of diversity as predictor of OCB (Shen et al., 2010). Shen et al. (2010), have evidenced that recruitment and selection of diverse workforce is significantly associated with OCB. Noor, Khalid, & Rashid (2014) have proposed how employees’ perceptions of organizations’ diversity management is linked with OCB, through diversity receptiveness. In that order of ideas, in a team it would be not the demographic diversity per se what is associated with OCB, but the reactions and perceptions to it and its management what can be related to OCB.

However, as stated before the presence of demographic differences in the team is associated with social categorizations and intergroup biases (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991; Williams &

(29)

29 O’Reilly, 1998) that lead to more relational conflict (Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled, 1996) and less group cohesion (Riordan & Shore, 1997). Scholars have linked surface level diversity (e.g., age and gender) and experiences of exclusion that may create reduced job satisfaction and commitment of team members (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Shore et al., 2011). In addition, demographic diversity have been associated with less group identification (Wagner, et al., 1984), which may translate into reduced cooperation. Subsequently, the demographic diversity in a team may reduce important identified antecedents of OCB such as job satisfaction and commitment. Furthermore, the categorizations that emerge from surface level diversity may affect dimensions of OCB as identification and helping behavior.

The challenge for a demographically diverse team is to reach through appropriate management favorable perceptions that may be associated with diversity such as equality and inclusion and reduce the social pitfalls associated with it that interfere with group functioning and OCB. In addition, it is relevant that the perceptions in reaction to demographic diversity in a team contribute to create identification not only with the team but with the organization in order to enable OCBs. Consequently, CSR perceptions that team members have of the organization should be considered in the analysis. CSR perceptions are directly linked to the organization, since they reflects the image that team members have of the company and thus can have the potential to enable OCBs. Furthermore, evidence has shown that employees’ perceptions of CSR influence their attitudes and behaviors thus having important implications for firms (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998; Rupp et al., 2006; Fu et al., 2014).

2.4.2 The moderating role of inclusive leader: Demographic diversity and CSR perceptions

CSR have been defined as the “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and

(30)

30 environmental performance” (Aguinis, 2011. p, 855). As employees are one of the key stakeholders of the firm, the way in which the organization interpersonally treats them (Interactional or Employee Oriented CSR) is an important part that contributes to the construction of their CSR perceptions (Rupp et al., 2006).

A team is a representation of the company and thus team members can use their current situation in the team as an indication of how the whole company is and works. In that order of ideas the members’ interpretation of their micro level situation may have an impact on their perceptions of the company. Accordingly, if a team is demographically heterogeneous, its members may perceive that the organization is diversity - oriented since it recruits and selects different individuals (Jackson, 1991; Shore et al., 2011). They may perceive that the company gives Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and respects all current and potential employees by valuing them for themselves, and avoiding barriers regarding their demography (Mazur, 2013; Shen et al., 2010). This is particularly relevant in industries and countries were women have been traditionally discriminated and also where aged or youngest people may find difficult to obtain or maintain job. To sum up, the presence of demographic diversity in a team may be perceived as a sign for its member of the diversity orientation of the firm and their EEO and thus conceived as employee oriented CSR.

However, employees may consider recruitment of demographically diverse individuals as a policy implemented primarily to comply with current laws and legislation to protect the right of equal opportunity (Shen et al., 2010). In that case, the diverse recruitment will not be strongly associated with positive CSR perceptions that team members have. To overcome this barrier, the role of the leader is crucial to show team members that the company is going beyond legal requirement and that is really committed with diversity and inclusion.

(31)

31 Since a leader acts as a crucial agent representing the organization to the employees, if the leader is inclusive, that might act as a signal for team members that the organization is inclusive. This leader contributes to create an inclusive climate in the team in which each individual can develop regardless of his/her gender or age (Maxfield, 2007) and that may be associated by team members as the whole organization´s climate. As an inclusive leader promotes and defends uniqueness (Shore et al., 2011), he will respect differences, enable each individual participation and provide members equal opportunities. Therefore, in presence of an inclusive leader in a demographically diverse team there will be a fair treatment of all team members and this could be considered by them as a socially responsible behavior (Brammer, Millington, & Rayton, 2007).

Summarizing, the leader and the team, will represent for the employees how the company manages diversity and will influence their perceptions of employee oriented CSR. In that sense, an inclusive leader and his contribution for an inclusive climate in the team can influence positively the CSR perceptions of its members and therefore is expected to make stronger the relation between demographic diversity in a team and its members’ CSR perceptions. Consequently, this research hypothesizes the following:

H3. An inclusive leader moderates the effects of demographic diversity (a. Gender and b. Age) in a team and team members’ perceptions of CSR of the organization, such that the positive relation between demographic diversity in a team and CSR perception of team members becomes stronger when inclusive leader levels are high.

2.4.3 The mediating role of CSR Perceptions

This research proposes that the interaction between demographic diversity in a team and an inclusive leader affects team members’ CSR perceptions of the organization, which in turn affect team OCB. To make this proposition this research bases on two other propositions. The first

(32)

32 one is that demographic diversity in a team and an inclusive leader interact affecting team members’ CSR perceptions of the organization. This proposition was clearly explained in the previous section. The second proposition is that team members’ CSR perceptions of the organization have important implications for team OCB. Furthermore, that these perceptions are positively related with team OCB.

Perceptions of CSR have been proven to be a way to influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998; Rupp et al., 2006; Fu et al., 2014). Research have shown that CSR perceptions can increase employees’ organizational loyalty or organizational identity (OI) (Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Fu et al., 2014), which is the perception of belongingness to an organization (Mael and Ashforth, 1992).The association between CSR perceptions and organizational identity has generally used Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) to explain that people have a “desire to identify with groups that allow themselves to view their identity in a distinctive and positive way” (Fu et al., 2014, p. 64). Therefore, employees will be happy and proud to be identified with an organization which they perceive with a favorable image. Furthermore, organizational identity has been associated with extra-role behavior or individual initiative (Riketta, 2005) and greater cooperation (helping behavior) (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Mael and Ashforth, 1992).

Various studies have shown positive correlation between CSR perceptions and antecedents of OCB such as job satisfaction (Riketta, 2005) and organizational commitment (Brammer et al., 2007; Hofman and Newman, 2014; Turker, 2009), and more specifically Affective Commitment (AC) (El Akremi et al., 2015; Turker, 2009). Affective Commitment “refers to employees' emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in, the organization” (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Organizational commitment is relevant since it has been identified as an antecedent

(33)

33 of OCB influencing dimensions such as organizational loyalty, organizational compliance and civic virtue (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Therefore, CSR perceptions are expected to be positively associated with OCBs, since they have been shown to influence antecedents (e.g, job satisfaction and commitment) and dimensions of OCB (e.g., organizational loyalty, organizational compliance and civic virtue). Consequently, in a team if its members have positive CSR perceptions of the organization they will show OCBs.

Given the previously exposed arguments in the previous section and in this section, this research proposes that the interaction between demographic diversity and an inclusive leader indirectly relates to OCB through its relation with team members’ CSR perceptions of the organization. Consequently the following hypothesis will be tested:

H4. Demographic diversity (a. Gender and b. Age) in a team is related to team OCB via conditional indirect effects, such that the interaction between demographic diversity and inclusive leaders is related to team members’ perceptions of CSR of the organization, which in turn are related to team OCB.

3 Method

This chapter presents the research method used to conduct the current study. First, the research design and procedure will be explained. Second, the most relevant characteristics of the collected sample will be outlined. Finally, the instruments used to operationalize constructs will be explained in detail.

(34)

34

3.1 Procedure

In order to address the aforementioned hypotheses, a survey was selected as the most suitable strategy for data collection. Two separate self-administered questionnaires were developed (one for team leader and one for team members) and distributed online using Qualtrics (survey platform). Due to practical constraints of cost and time a non-probability sampling technic was used in this research. Convenience sampling was implemented since the researcher used her personal network of contacts to get access to different organizations. Additionally, snowball sampling was implemented as supervisors and members of participant teams contributed to recruit more teams to take part of the survey.

The researcher searched for teams consisting of a leader and at least two subordinates. Different organizations and team leaders were invited to participate in this study. To incentive participation a presentation with the study’s main findings was offered for organizations which contributed with at least 3 teams. In addition, the opportunity to participate in raffle was offered for people who completed the questionnaire (it was clearly stated that the inscription to the raffle was not linked with the specific answers in the questionnaire). One person of the team, usually team leader, was invited via email to fill the questionnaire and to distribute the link to the questionnaire to the other team members. A cover letter was included providing information about consent, purpose of the research, data protection guidelines, incentives, researcher´s contact information and estimated time needed to complete the questionnaire (10-15 minutes for leader questionnaire and 15-20 minutes for employee questionnaire). Surveys were returned anonymously, however matching codes were used to link the leader and the subordinates in a team. Participation in this research was completely voluntary and data was treated confidentially. The

(35)

35 study was cross-sectional, data collection started in mid-May 2015 and after two remainders to the contacted person in each team it was closed in mid-August 2015.

3.2 Sample

The researcher contacted different organizations and team leaders, in total 250 teams were invited to participate in this study. Subsequently, 120 leaders agreed to participate in the study with their work teams. Finally, 75 leaders and 134 subordinates filled the questionnaire, corresponding to 81 teams. However, only teams which had responses of the leader and at least 2 subordinates could be included in the usable sample. Therefore this study had a usable response of 46 leaders and 119 subordinates, corresponding to 46 teams (participation rate: 18%). All the following descriptions and further analysis in this study will be based on the usable sample (46 teams).

The majority of the participant teams were located in Colombia (92%), while the remaining teams were in Germany, USA and Ecuador (4%, 2% and 2% respectively). These teams were distributed in 35 organizations in the private sector. These organizations belonged to a wide variety industries, remarking Consultancy (19.6%), Technology and communications (17.3%) and Health (13%), while there were other industries as Consumer Packed Goods, tourism and automotive among others. Teams worked on a variety of task as client service, administrative functions, marketing, research and development (R&D) and sales, among others.

Actual team sizes raged from 2 to 18 members (M = 6.09, SD = 4.2). The average age of team members was 29 years (SD = 6.8, age-range: 16-58), while the leaders age mean was 38 years (SD =11.3, age-range: 24-65). In terms of gender, for team members the majority were females (67% female, 33% male), meanwhile the majority of leaders were males (39.1% female, 60.9%

(36)

36 male). Most of respondents had received education beyond high school, however the majority of team members had a college or bachelor’s degree (53.9%), while the majority of leaders had received education higher than college (Master’s degree, 43.2%, Specialization 19.6%).

3.3 Measures

Translation, back-translation procedure

Questionnaires were available in English and Spanish, because the majority of possible participants were from Colombia. Since measurement scales were adopted from English studies, for the Spanish versions the back-translation technique was used. First, all items were translated to Spanish and afterwards the translated Spanish items were back translated to English by a third person. Finally, a small number of discrepancies between the back-translated and the original items were corrected in the final Spanish versions of the questionnaires.

Measures of main variables

All perceptual measures namely inclusive leadership, information elaboration and CSR perceptions, were rated by team members and had a 5-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). While team performance variables were measured through leader’s ratings and has a 7-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). Objective team performance ratings (e.g., R.O.I) were not possible to obtain because a variety of organizations participated in the study.

Demographic diversity. Scholars advice against aggregating multiple dimensions of diversity into a single index (Harrison and Klein 2007), therefore this research operationalized age and gender diversity as separate dimensions of diversity. Age diversity: To calculate age diversity, the coefficient of variation (i.e., the standard deviation divided by the mean) was used. Gender

(37)

37 Diversity was calculated using Blau’s (1977) index of heterogeneity, which is the most commonly used index of diversity for categorical variables (Harrison and Klein 2007). The formula to calculate the index is 1 − ∑𝑘 𝑝𝑖2

𝑖=1 where pi represents the fractions of the population in each

category i. in a total of k categories. The index ranges from zero to (k -1)/k, therefore in gender diversity the range goes from 0 (maximum homogeneity) to 0.5(maximum heterogeneity). In order to obtain all team member’s gender and age, leaders were asked to fill a team composition matrix. In the questionnaire the importance of completing this matrix was clearly explained to leaders.

Inclusive leader: Nishii, L. H., recently developed a scale to measure team-oriented leader inclusiveness, therefore this 15-item scale was used to measure inclusive leadership. The three dimensions of the scale (levelling the playing field, harvesting the benefits of diversity and cultivating-values-in diversity beliefs) were measured. Example items of the scale are: “The leader of my team makes sure that team members do not exclude others in the group.” and “The leader of my team makes sure that all team members are valued for their contributions”. The Cronbach‘s alpha of this scale in this study was .94.

Information elaboration. To measure information elaboration the 4-item scale from Kearney and Gebert (2009) was used. Examples of items are: “The members of this team complement each other by openly sharing their knowledge” and “The members of this team carefully consider all perspectives in an effort to generate optimal solutions”. The coefficient alpha was .71.

CSR Perceptions: Due to the aim of this research, it was relevant to measure CSR perceptions specifically oriented to employees. Therefore this research used the Employee-oriented CSR dimension of the scale developed and validated by El Akremi et al (2015). This scale consists of six dimensions (Community-oriented CSR, Natural environment–oriented CSR,

(38)

38 Employee-oriented CSR, Supplier-oriented CSR, Customer-oriented CSR, and Shareholder-Oriented CSR), however the Employee oriented dimension, consisting of 6 items, was the one most suitable for the purpose of this study. The scale was adapted from a Likert scale from 1 to 6, 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). The scale consists of items like: “Our company supports equal opportunities at work (e.g., gender equality policies)” and “Our company encourages employees’ diversity in the workplace.” The coefficient alpha was .76.

Team Performance (task and contextual performance): As previously explained, this research measured team innovation as task performance and team OCB as contextual performance. Team Innovation: Team innovation was measured using the Anderson and West (1998) 4-item scale. Example 4-items are: “Team members often produce new services, methods or procedures” and “This is an innovative team”. The coefficient alpha was .81.

Team OCB: To measure OCB the 24-item scale of Podsakoff et al. (1990) was used. All dimensions of this scale namely conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy, altruism, and sportsmanship were measured in this study. For this study, items were adapted from individual to team description. Example items are: “Team members help orient new people even though it is not required” and “This team keeps abreast of changes in the organization”.

The coefficient alpha was .87.

Measures of control and further variables

Control variables: This study included four control variables which previous research has identified as being associated with team processes and outcomes (Kearney & Gebert, 2009). Objective time size was determined through the leader’s questionnaire were the number of persons in the team was asked. Age mean was computed and used as a control variable as well. Furthermore, task interdependence was measured using the 5-item scale from Van Der Vegt and

(39)

39 Janssen (2003) and job complexity was measured with the 3-item scale from Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). The former two scales were rated by team members from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Additionally, language (Spanish= 1 and English=0) was assessed to be a control variable, since Spanish questionnaires corresponded to work teams in developing countries (Colombia and Ecuador) and English questionnaires corresponded to teams in developed countries (Germany and USA). However, when controlling for language the pattern of results did not change, therefore it was not included as a control variable for the main analyses.

Further variables: For a broader research endeavor, additional variables related to the main study’s variables were also measured. Team members were asked to rate participative safety, (Anderson & West, 1998), support for innovation (Anderson & West, 1998), organization identification (Mael & Ashtoreth, 1992), affective commitment (Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993) and normative commitment (Meyer, Allen & Smith, 1993). Furthermore leaders were asked to rate team performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999) and team overall performance (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005).

(40)

40

4 Data analysis and results

The current chapter presents the steps taken in order to analyze the collected data. A detailed description of the analytical procedure and the results of the performed analyses is presented.

4.1 Data analysis

The data obtained from the survey was analyzed using the Statistical software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Before testing the hypotheses some steps were taken in order to prepare the data and some preliminary analysis (descriptive statistics) were made.

Recoding counter-indicative items: Recoding of counter-indicative applied to some items. These were item 2 of team innovation (Anderson &West, 1998), items 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 1990) and item 2 of task interdependence (Van Der Vegt and Janssen, 2003)

Handling missing data: A frequency test was run for all variables in order to check for missing data. The amount of missing data was lower than 10% for all variables. Therefore a Hot Deck imputation (Myers, 2011) was processed in order to replace missing values.

Reliability: Reliability checks were run for the main variables in the model, in order to examine the internal consistency of measurements. As shown in Table 1, the Cronbach’s alpha was higher than 0.7 for all main variables, therefore indicating high level of internal consistency.

Justification for aggregation: As constructs were conceptualize at team level, within-team agreement (rwg; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), intraclass correlations (ICC[1]), and reliabilities of the means (ICC[2]; Bliese, 2000) were calculated. These values were .89 (rwg[J]), .08 (ICC[1]),

The role of inclusive leaders on team innovation and team organizational citizenship behavior, through information elaboration and CSR perceptions