Inclusive Leadership in Practice

(1)

INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE

Fostering Inclusive Leadership by Focusing on Leaders’ Diversity Perspectives

and the Organizational Culture: A Case Study of ProRail

Master of Public Administration Public Management & Leadership track Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Leiden University

Marjenne Verkleij S1545248

Main Supervisor: dr. Tanachia Ashikali Second Supervisor: dr. Nadine Raaphorst Supervisor ProRail: Rachelle van Daalen

(2)

2

ABSTRACT

A considerable amount of study has focused on the relation between leadership and inclusion. However, less research has been carried out about what factors affect leaders to show

inclusive leadership; a leadership style that is proved to be most effective in creating a sense of inclusion among individuals. Given the demand to have an inclusive workplace, it is crucial to examine further the development of inclusive leadership. By drawing upon existing knowledge and a case study, this research demonstrates the impact of organizational culture and diversity perspectives on inclusive leadership. Moreover, this study proves the utility of the Competing Values Framework of Cameron & Quinn (2006) to assess the organizational culture within ProRail.

Keywords: ProRail, diversity, inclusion, inclusive leadership, organizational culture, diversity perspectives.

(4)

4

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Provocative

Globalization and immigration have caused developments with respect to the demography and the labor markets. Consequently, organizations need to find a way to cope with the new, diverse workforce (Cardno et al., 2018; Çelik et al., 2011). For this reason, focusing on diversity has become a priority for many organizations. However, the issue with diversity is not the diversity itself, but utilizing and integrating diverse employees in such a way it

contributes to the realization of positive organizational outcomes (Cardno et al., 2018; Randel et al., 2018; Sabharwal, 2014). Many of the positive outcomes of diversity are described by scholars (Carmeli et al., 2010; Hirak et al., 2012). These positive outcomes of diversity are not guaranteed by solely recruiting different people and compositing diverse teams:

individuals need to feel included (Mor Barak et al., 2016). Being included involves the full utilization and integration of all diverse employees. The challenge, therefore, is to translate the differences within a diverse population into an opportunity and managing diversity in such a way it is beneficial for the company.

In order to fully employ individual’s potential and to maximize the involvement of a diverse workforce, many scholars have conducted research on the concept of inclusion (Bilimoria et al., 2008; Nishi, 2013). To feel included, two elements need to be balanced: sense of belongingness and need for uniqueness (Guillaume et al., 2013; Shore et al., 2011). Belongingness refers to individuals’ desire to feel part of, respected, included and accepted by a defined group (Levett-Jones & Lathlean, 2008). Uniqueness, on the other hand, relates to individuals’ need to retain self-distinctiveness (Randel et al., 2018). Although diversity management is considered to be a crucial first step (Sabharwal, 2014), it is not enough to create inclusion. Leadership plays a crucial role in the implementation and its support is seen as a prerequisite for the success of diversity management and interventions that stimulate inclusion (Nishii & Ozbilgin, 2007; Ashikali & Groeneveld, 2015). As agents of an organization, leaders communicate the norms and values of the organizations and, in turn, affect the perceived inclusiveness of the culture of employees (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Shore et al., 2011; Wright & Nishii, 2007). Given the important role of leaders in studies of diversity management, it is relevant to go beyond studying results of diversity and examine what factors affect leadership focused on creating inclusion, namely inclusive leadership.

(5)

5 1.2 Role of leadership

Caused by a changing society and the associated positive effects of diversity, many public organizations focus on diversifying its workforce these days. Particularly, diversity can improve problem-solving and enhance decision-making due to the inclusion of different perspectives (Ashikali & Groeneveld, 2015). Furthermore, from a representative bureaucracy viewpoint, diversity can improve the responsiveness and legitimacy of an organization (Groeneveld & Van de Walle, 2010; Pitts et al., 2010).

However, these results are not achieved by simply recruiting diverse individuals and diversifying the workforce. To do so, organizations have designed and implemented diversity management. Diversity management has the intention to foster those positive effects of diversity and diminish or eliminate its negative effects derived from intergroup biases (Van Knippenberg & Van Ginkel, 2010). Previous studies have focused on the mediating role of leadership in this process as leaders influence experiences and behavior of employees (Gilbert et al., 2011; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007; Yukl, 2013). Moreover, Thomas & Ely (1996) found that effective leadership will stimulate diverse employees to value and appreciate different perspectives, ideas and opinions. Therefore, in order to make diversity work, it is essential to focus on the role of leaders.

Today, inclusive leadership receives substantially more attention in leadership style studies. Inclusive leadership is proved to be most effective in managing diversity and fostering inclusion (Randel et al., 2018). This is because inclusive leadership is focused on stimulating and facilitating belongingness and uniqueness. In other words, inclusive

leadership assures that individuals feel they belong to the group and feel their participation is valued and respected. Only when the need for belongingness and uniqueness are satisfied, different experiences, perspectives and ideas can be consciously used (Shore et al., 2011; Randel et al., 2018).

Up to today, the concept of inclusive leadership is being debated. Previous studies have mainly focused on the effects of inclusive leadership and little on what stimulates inclusive leadership behavior (Choi et al., 2017; Randel et al., 2018; Qi & Liu, 2017) Consequently, scholars have called for further elaboration on factors that may stimulate or constrain inclusive behavior (Ashikali, Groeneveld & Kuipers, 2020). Deeper understanding of these factors is crucial to provide more insight into why leaders do or do not exhibit inclusive leadership. This topic also touches upon literature discussing antecedents of leadership in general. For decennia, scholars have discussed the extent a person is able to learn to lead or whether leadership is a trait (Johnson et al., 1998). Since leadership research

(6)

6 is increasingly focused on the makeable elements of leadership, addressing contextual factors is a logical step. In addition to focusing on these contextual factors, it is also necessary to examine contextual factors to understand leadership as leadership does not evolve in a bubble; leadership is context dependent (House & Aditya, 1997; Osborn et al., 2002). In this way, this research will add to a more comprehensive understanding of how inclusive leadership comes about.

1.3 Motivation

Over the 70 years, multiple reasons for focusing on diversity have prevailed. Convinced that public organizations are more effective and legit when everyone is represented in it, attention for representative bureaucracy has grown in the 50s (Groeneveld & Van de Walle, 2010; Selden & Selden, 2001). As a result, traditional approaches to diversity were aimed to prevent potential negative outcomes associated with diversity. For example, affirmative action

initiatives were to reduce inequalities and discrimination minority groups face. Around the turn of the century, the focus on equal treatment and democratic considerations was replaced by the added value for organizations (Groeneveld & Van de Walle, 2010). Starting in the private sector, diversity within organizations became linked to organizations’ goals, benefiting the effectiveness and efficiency of organizations (Pitts, 2005). This is known as the business case of diversity, and so, refers to the positive effects of

diversity that boost the profitability and opportunities for an organization (Herring, 2009; Thomas, et al., 2004).

Interestingly, those beliefs and expected effects in terms of diversity hold by an organization affects the outcomes of diversity (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). For example, Homan et al. (2007) showed that when teams hold pro-diversity beliefs about diversity and the effects on team outcomes, the team will better make use of the diverse perspectives within the team. Also, Ely & Thomas (2001) defined three perspectives and showed that each perspective is related differently to why people pursue a diverse workforce and what the effects of diversity are. The three perspectives are discrimination-and- fairness, access-and-legitimacy, and integration-and-learning. As they claim, when people believe they can learn from the diversity within their team, openly discuss different perspectives and integrate those, this will maximize the positive effects on group functioning (Ely & Thomas, 2001). In sum, previous studies have demonstrated that it is important that individuals are aware of and believe in the added value of diversity; it drives people to incorporate both

(7)

7 belongingness and uniqueness. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the diversity perspectives leaders hold and its relation to their attitudes and behavior.

1.4 The organizational context

Studies have demonstrated context influences individual behavior (Boal & Hooijberg, 2000; Randel et al., 2018), the extent an organizational can benefit from diversity (Guillaume et al., 2013) and the effectiveness of leadership (Shamir & Howell, 1999). Although different components and types of organizational context exist, organizational culture is considered to be important when focusing on the development of leadership since culture affects the effectiveness of leadership styles (Porter & McLaugin, 2006; Quinn & Cameron, 2006). Organizational culture is an aggregate of values, interests, beliefs and attitudes

individuals within an organization shares and influences how individuals interact to achieve a common goal (Ehrhart et al. 2015; Van Muilen & All, 1999). Organizational culture has two distinctive functions. Firstly, to provide an instruction about accepted interaction. Secondly, it helps the organizations to adjust to external circumstances.

The Competing Value Framework introduced by Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1983) specifies what is expected from managers under certain circumstances, and so, what leadership style is most effective in an organization. This tool allows us to map the current organizational culture and decide whether related manager’s role competes or is line with the role of an inclusive leadership. Consequently, the CFV is a useful tool.

So far, little is known about what culture type may stimulate or constrain leaders to behave in an inclusive manner. Herein, it is important to consider the individual level; how the organizational culture is perceived by the manager him- or herself. This is important since people may interpret culture differently, and therefore, the extent of feeling impeded or stimulated to behave in an inclusive manner can be the subject of controversy. This research therefore will focus on how organizational culture relates to inclusive leadership.

1.5 Goal and research question

The goal of this research is to obtain better insight into the managers’ diversity perspectives and the extent they are impeded or motivated by the organizational culture to convey inclusive leadership at ProRail. This research will build on recent literature on inclusive leadership that suggests that the effectiveness of inclusive leadership depends on several factors. Based on manager’s diversity perspectives and how they perceive the organizational

(8)

8 culture, this research will examine how these factors influence leaders to behave in an

inclusive manner. Having a greater understanding of how inclusive leadership evolves will help to work on and pursue inclusive leadership. This is important since inclusive leadership is a determinant in creating inclusion and can thereby contribute to the organizational and team performances (Randel et al., 2018). Based on the discussion above, the following research question is formed and answered in this thesis:

How do diversity perspectives and organizational culture affect the inclusive leadership of managers at ProRail?

To provide an answer to this question, the following sub questions are formulated and will be answered:

- How do managers’ diversity perspectives influence inclusive leadership? - How does the perceived organizational culture of managers influence inclusive

leadership?

1.6 Societal relevance

In response to the changing society organizations feel the need to diversify. However, diversification of the workforce is not enough, organizations need to work on their

inclusiveness to take advantage of diversity and to be responsive to the changing needs of citizens and clients. To improve inclusiveness and be responsive, many organizations develop and implement diversity management practices. Although leadership assigns a mediating role in the process of diversity practices and organizational outcomes (Gilbert et al., 2011; Wright & Nishii, 2007), little attention is paid to the role of leadership.

ProRail, like other (public) organizations, also deals with the changing society and other complex issues. For example, ProRail copes with a shortage of technical trained

employees, and the mixture of employees in the workforce is evolving, spanning generations, which results in the development of multiple workstyles and needs. Moreover, it is their goal to respond to the demand for 30% more passenger trains and goods trains in 2030.

To achieve this goal and cope with the challenges, I presume that inclusive leadership is needed. Inclusive leadership is able to create a sense of belonging among the diverse team members while integrating the unique perspectives and contributions of individual team members (Randel et al. 2018). This in turns allows an organization to optimally use employees’ contributions, which will contribute towards achieving the goal.

This study will examine diversity perspectives and organizational culture that may affect inclusive leadership.

(9)

9 Other public organizations that have to deal with complex issues that do not provide a simple solution will be able to use the outcomes of this research. Complex issues should be viewed from several different angels. Therefore, having a diverse workforce is very

important. However, only inclusive leaders are able to exploit the diversity that may contribute to the resolutions of complex issues. Therefore, it is important to provide deeper understanding about what factors may stimulate or inhibit leaders to behave in an inclusive manner.

1.7 Scientific Relevance

Previous studies have attempted to build a theoretical foundation for inclusive leadership (Ashikali, 2018; Randel, et al., 2018). Randel et al. (2018) came up with a conceptual model and asked for empirical study to test this framework. They also suggested more research is needed to test the influence of contextual factors on the relationships within their model. Also, Ashikali et al. (2020) call for more studies that investigate the contextual factors that direct the development of inclusive leadership behavior. As they argue, some circumstances may discourage leaders to behave in an inclusive manner, while others might stimulate this. To this end, this research will contribute to the body of knowledge on inclusive leadership behavior by adding empirical research.

To examine and identify the factors influencing inclusive leadership behavior, this study will analyze diversity perspectives and the organizational culture in relation to inclusive leadership. To do so, this study uses a qualitative method, a case study. This method is able to provide deep knowledge and has the capacity to uncover deeper social constructs (Bennet & Elman, 2006). This is important for two reasons. Firstly, this is essential in examining factors related to beliefs, culture, and behavior since these factors are particularly susceptible to subjectivity. Secondly, research into this area is mostly conducted in a quantitative fashion, and therefore, by using a qualitative method, this research will provide a deeper

understanding of the determinants of inclusive leadership.

Although this research is focused on one case, contextual knowledge about the determinants of inclusive behavior is fundamental to any future attempts at improving workplace inclusion. The analysis of the determinants of inclusive behavior will provide meaningful insight which may be used in considering what type of intervention could be most effective to stimulate inclusive leadership.

(10)

10 This thesis is structured as follows. The second chapter provides a theoretical frame of the relevant concepts, such as diversity, inclusion, inclusive leadership, diversity perspectives and organizational culture. This chapter will end with a conceptual model. The chapter proceeds with an explanation of the research method. While explaining the method of this thesis, advantages and disadvantages of a case study will be touched upon. In the third chapter, the collected data will be examined and discussed. The thesis will end with a discussion and conclusion, including an outline of recommendations for future research.

(11)

11

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this chapter, the theoretical framework will be provided. This theoretical framework provides the scientific basis for this research in which relevant concepts, definitions, models and theories are discussed. In the first place, a definition of the relevant concepts is provided, such as diversity & inclusion, inclusive leadership, diversity perspectives and organizational culture. Once the concepts have been elaborated upon the relation between the concepts are examined, based on the literature. Finally, a conceptual model will be presented in order to visualize the assumed relations.

2.1 Diversity and Inclusion

Diversity refers to several differences among individuals, such as, personality, culture, education, skills, age and gender. However, literature that discusses diversity is mainly focused on the effects of diversity for organizations and rarely elaborates upon the definition of diversity. Moreover, these results are as diverse as diversity itself. Considering this, Harrison & Klein (2007) have made a classification for diversity, consisting of three types. This classification is a tool to measure and conceptualize diversity, to make any conclusive statements about the effects of diversity and how to cope effectively with different types of diversity. According to Harrison & Klein (2007), diversity concerns the differences among team members regarding a specific characteristic. They argued that diversity within a group can be an indication of separation, variation and disparity.

Separation refers to differences among team members with respect to beliefs, values, opinions and other positions regarding team goals and processes. As the similarity-attraction theory prescribes, individuals prefer to stay with equals (Byrne, 1971). Moreover, the social identity theory assumes that individuals have the need to belong to a group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). It is pleasing to be part of group with equals since it entails strengthening self-image and self-confidence. As people identify themselves with groups, the group is important for how people perceive and behave themselves. The stronger individuals experience equality, the stronger the identification. However, separation takes place when individuals disagree with group members. Maximum separation within the group leads to polarization and the manifestation of subunits within a group. Consequently, conflict, distrust and exclusion might arise (Harrison & Klein, 2007).

(12)

12 Variation reflects differences in category or kind, such as educational background, experience, and information. According to several scholars, variation leads to positive outcomes, such as creativity and better decision-making. This is caused by the availability of diverse relevant knowledge and skills that team member hold and share with one another. However, openness and responsiveness of each other’s’ ideas will only follow when maximum variation is present. When medium variation is present, exchange of ideas and knowledge will be limited since individuals will mainly focus on common grounds (Gruenfeld et al., 1996; Harrison & Klein, 2007).

Disparity covers the distribution of valued resources or assets between team members, such as payments, status, power etc. When maximum disparity occurs, the asset or resource is unbalanced among team members. It would result in a competitive atmosphere within the group, resistance, and a lack of team spirit and commitment to the team (Harrison & Klein, 2007).

Returning to the positive effects of diversity, diversity assumes to positively influence the wellbeing of employees and organizational performance. However, having diversity within the organization is not enough. It is acknowledged that when an organization does not value diversity or manage it effectively internal and external harm can be a result, such as, high employee turnover, interpersonal conflicts and inefficient communication (Gündemir et al., 2019). Consequently, to prevent negative outcomes of diversity, Shore et al. (2011) emphasized that organizations need to integrate diverse individuals through inclusion. In conclusion, to benefit from diversity, it necessary to create a climate where the variety of different relevant knowledge and sources is valued and appreciated. When variety is present in combination with disparity and/ or separation, this variety of knowledge and skills will not be considered as added value. Therefore, when disparity or separation occurs, it necessary to focus on inclusion. Inclusion focuses on the involvement of all employee and manners to stimulate the participation of everyone and to take advantage of the variety within the organization or team (Roberson, 2006). The definition and utilization of inclusion is further discussed in the next paragraph.

Although the concept of inclusion has been the subject of increasing scholarly

attention, a lack of consensuses hinders the utilization of the concept, theoretically as well as practically (Shore et al., 2011). Consequently, scholars have used different methods to develop the definition. Based on the Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT) which describes that individuals seek a balance between the need for similarity and uniqueness, Shore et al. (2011) elaborate the following definition: “Inclusion is the degree to which an employee

(13)

13 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).

The two components, belongingness and uniqueness, are crucial to create inclusion. To elaborate on this, as the social identity theory prescribes, individuals feel the need to identify themselves with a group. The group one identifies with, is considered to be the in-group and the in-group one does not identify with is named the out-in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In other words, individuals need a sense of belonging to a group.

To create feelings of inclusion, these two needs - to belong and retain unique need to be balanced. As underlined by Gasorek (2000), employees need to feel involved in decision-making and problem-solving processes and valued for their contributions. In addition, Davidson & Ferdman (2002) argued that inclusion enables individuals to use their unique talents so they can contribute to the organization’s success or carry out a relevant task. Shore et al. (2011) created a framework where outcomes are provided when there is no focus on these needs or only on one of these needs. Figure 1. shows these outcomes. As Shore et al. (2011) argue, the extent an individual experiences inclusion or exclusion depends on the degree of belongingness and uniqueness felt by the individual. Only when both belongingness and uniqueness are felt by the individual, the individual will experience inclusion. This occurs when the individual feels she/he is an insider and feels supported to fully provide its unique contributions. On the contrary, exclusion occurs when a feeling of low belongingness and low uniqueness is experienced by individuals. This happens when an individual is not considered to be (fully) part of the group and where other members are more valued. When only

belongingness is met, assimilations occurs. In case of assimilation, the individual is

considered to be an insider but with the condition that the individual confirms to the dominant norms and culture of the group. The individual is not encouraged to downplay its uniqueness. A state of differentiation exists when only uniqueness is met. This happens when a unique element of an individual is considered to be valuable and needed for the group. However, the individual is not treated as an insider.

One can propose that, derived from this framework, a manager is expected to meet both high belongingness and high value of uniqueness in order to create a feeling of inclusion and so, act in an inclusive manner. Therefore, in the next paragraph inclusive leadership is further elaborated.

(14)

14

Low Belongingness High Belongingness

Exclusion

Individual is not treated as an

organizational insider with unique value in the work group but there are other

employees or groups who are insiders.

Assimilation

Individual is treated as an insider in the work group when they conform to organizational/dominant culture norms and downplay uniqueness.

Differentiation

Individual is not treated as an

organizational insider in the work group but their unique characteristics are seen as valuable and required for

group/organization success.

Inclusion

Individual is treated as an insider and also

allowed/encouraged to retain uniqueness within the work group.

Figure 1, Inclusion framework (Shore et al. 2011, p. 1266)

2.2 Inclusive leadership

Existing literature on leadership has focused on leadership styles and perceptions of

leadership and personal features of leaders. In the past, personal traits of ideal leaders formed a central part in leadership research (Atwater & Yammarino, 1993; Segal, 1985). It was assumed that leaders should have stable features which made them leaders. Trying to identify these traits to indicate the difference between effective and ineffective leaders, various factors, such as physiological factors, skills, intelligence, personality traits were considered. However, after several years, scholars could not find a general pattern with respect to these factors, except for personality traits. Consequently, research is increasingly focused on the relation between diverse personality characteristics.

In response to these disappointing results from previous research, a second stream of academic research focusing on leadership in organizations aroused. Central in this research was the shift in focus from who the leader is to the behavior of leaders. According to this

L ow V al u e i n U n iq u en es s H igh V al u e i n U n iq u en es s

(15)

15 approach, effectiveness of leadership depends on the chosen leadership style (Bryman, 1992). As a result, different styles were introduced, including behavior related to the style described.

To decide on what leadership style is most effective for creating a feeling of inclusion among members, different leadership styles are compared by Randel et al. (2018), such as transformational leadership, empowering leadership, servant leadership, authentic and leader-member exchange. This comparison shows that different leaderships styles potentially include a component of inclusion. For example, transformational leadership does focus on the

individual and its uniqueness, however, the uniqueness that is focused on must align with organizational needs, leading to assimilation instead of inclusion. Moreover, servant leadership is mainly focused on creating development and success for members but not specifically on the members’ need to feel a sense of belongingness and express their

uniqueness. Therefore, although different leadership styles may touch upon member’s needs, only inclusive leadership has the potential to fully address and balances belongingness and uniqueness (Randel et al., 2018). As a result, it is necessary to elaborate on behavior linked to this style.

Inclusive leadership involves different characteristics. Firstly, inclusive leadership is focused on treating groups and individuals fairly - meaning that they are treated by their unique characteristics, not on stereotypes. Moreover, the uniqueness of diverse individuals is valued and understood while at the same time they are accepted as group members. Lastly, inclusive leaders make sure all diverse perspectives and ideas are promoted and integrated in decision-making. This creates a common team identity process, which will contribute to the positive effects of diversity fostering organizational outcomes (Mitchell, et al., 2015). Randel et al. (2018) elaborated on the concept inclusive leadership and defined inclusive leadership as: “behaviors that collectively facilitate all group members perceptions of belongingness to the work group and that encourage group members contributing their uniqueness to achieving positive group outcomes” (Randel et al., 2018, p. 195). In their study, they set out five behavior types which fit belongingness or uniqueness. As becomes clear from Table 1, three behavior components are developed for belongingness and two components for uniqueness. To facilitate belongingness, a leader needs to support all employees as group members, ensure justice and equity is felt by all group members, and lastly, encourage members to participate in decision-making and integrate all diverse

perspectives. To indicate uniqueness, leaders have to encourage different input to the group, help and welcome all group members to maximize their contribution. In the literature, different aspects are discussed that may stimulate or hinder managers to behave in an

(16)

16 inclusive manner. Therefore, the following sections will elaborate on personal and

organizational factors that may affect inclusive leadership.

Table 1

Inclusive leadership behaviors (described by Randel et al. 2018, p. 193-194).

Belongingness Uniqueness

1. Supporting individuals as group members

1. Encourage diverse contributions

2. Ensuring justice and equity within the group

2. Helps group members to fully contribute

3. Promoting individuals’ diverse contributions to the group by shared decision-making.

2.3 Diversity perspectives

There are different views with regard to diversity within an organization and why it should be promoted. As explained in the introduction, the main driver of diversity may vary over the years and per organization has been developing as well. Ely & Thomas (2001) elaborate on three diversity perspectives that explain why organizations focus on diversity in their organization. As they argue, the perspective on diversity influences the way organizations cope with and react to diversity. In other words, a perspective on diversity that an

organization or an individual holds, predicts behavior. Therefore, it is valuable to elaborate on these perspectives and see which perspective matches most perfectly with behaviors expected of inclusive leader. The three perspectives are discrimination & fairness, access & legitimacy and integration & learning.

Firstly, the discrimination-and-fairness perspective is based on justice and has a moral imperative; everyone is equal and must be treated that way. Differences across the

organization are discussed and or emphasized as little as possible. In this context, diversity should give rise to the minimum possible distortion of the organization’s operation. This perspective is focused on the equalization of opportunities regarding recruitment and promotion and the suppression of biases and discriminations towards minority groups.

(17)

17 Organizations that act based on this perspective do this from a moral imperative, to provide a reflection of society in their organization. However, organizational norms do not change within this perspective. It is expected that employees adjust their behavior to current

standards. Subsequently, it can be assumed that managers departing from this perspective are mainly focused on retaining these standards among all team members and do not appreciate or respect deviant behavior. As a result, what is different, and so, what makes and employee unique is not addressed. In this perspective, the manager is not behaving in an inclusive way, rather assimilative (Shore et al., 2011).

Secondly, the access-and-legitimacy perspective focuses on the opportunities of diversity offered by the market. For example, gathering knowledge about different groups in order to connect with these diverse groups. In doing so, the legitimacy and recognizability of the organization will increase within these different groups. Assuming markets will become more and more diverse, organizations respond to these developments by enlarging their own diversity, which will provide them better access, and so, connection to their customers’ desires. Organizations expect that when an employee and a client share the same background, they will be able to communicate and understand each other better. As a result of this

common understanding, organizations hope to increase their profits. However, the diversity of employees is only limited to a certain level or part of the organization. Therefore, the

diversity is not embedded into the entire organization and the added value of a diverse workforce will get lost. Managers that treat their team member according to this perspective will mainly focus on members’ unique characteristics with the goal to serve a special part of the organization. It is less likely that other competencies of members are acknowledged and valued by the manager. As a result, managers with this perspective will not actively seek to create a sense of belongingness where all competences and contributions of individuals come forward in decision-making. In this sense, the manager expresses behavior related to

differentiation instead of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011).

Lastly according to the integration-and-learning perspective, organizations working from this perspective increase the organization’s diversity because they presuppose that including different perspective will foster innovation and creativity which will in turn improves the organization's’ products and results (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Following this perspective, managers will clearly notice the individual competencies, expertise, experiences and characteristics of each member. All these individual aspects are considered in the evaluation of current tasks, work processes, the organization’s culture. Different contributions and visions are included in decision-making and considered to be

(18)

18 value to gain new insights. In this sense, managers behave in an inclusive manner; they create a sense of belongingness among team member while valuing everyone’s uniqueness.

What these perspectives have in common is that they all emphasize the added value of diversity. Nonetheless, it is also possible that organizations or individuals do not hold any perspective for diversity (Dass & Parker, 1999). Not having a perspective can be an argument to maintain the status quo and, thereby, possibly discriminatory practices. It allows

organizations to avoid diversity within their workforce and to focus on commonality across their employees (Podsiadlowski, et al., 2013). This way, these organizations assume that homogeneity and commonality across employees will benefit the organizational performance.

2.4 Organizational culture

One of the most studied type of organizational context is organizational culture. The reason why much is written about organizational culture is the assumption that this type is a substantial social factor that influences individual, group and organizational behavior (Hartnell et al., 2011). Subsequently, it is important to comprehend how organizational culture relates to inclusive behavior.

Organizational culture was first mentioned in American literature, in an article of Pettigrew in 1979 (Hofstede et al., 1990) and recently added into organizational theory. Previous studies mainly used terms such as organizational climate. This term was introduced and developed by psychologists to declare differences in human behavior in different social situations. As they stated, something in the environment influences individual’s behavior within a group. This something is named climate. Focusing on the definitions, organizational climate and culture can be considered to be complementary components. Climate is “the shared meaning organizational member attach to the events, policies, practices, and procedures they see being rewarded, supported and expected.” (Ehrhart, Schneider, & Macey, 2015, p. 2). Although there is little consensus on the definition of culture, some common elements can be noticed, such as, shared beliefs, values, artefacts, knowledge, customs, morals, art, law and other capabilities acquired by members of a certain society (Schein, 2010). Values are the ideologies, norms and philosophies of an organization. The artifacts can be the manner in which individuals interact with each other, the dress code, organizational lay-out, or more constant elements, such as statements or products. These elements are behavioral guidelines in an organization. Bearing those definitions in mind, climate is a manifestation of culture, and therefore, the concept organizational culture is used in this thesis.

(19)

19 Previous studies produced evidence to suggest that culture is partly responsible for effectiveness of leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Kwantes & Boglarsky, 2007). This can be explained by the ability of culture to establishes a context in which certain norms and values apply, and so, what is accepted behavior and what is not (Schein, 1996). Therefore, culture can affect how leaders behave and interact with their employees. Moreover, culture has a controversial nature. On the one hand, culture is a dynamic phenomenon, constantly reshaped and reproduced through social interactions and our own behavior. On the other hand, culture reflects rigidity and stability; cultures provide us a language of how to behave, feel, and perceive in a given context (Schein, 2010). Culture, in this sense, evolves and grows through human interaction and thus develops in unknown ways. This makes culture an organizational variable, which means that it can vary; culture can be weaker or stronger, and may take other forms over the years.

A popular model for studying organizational culture is the Competing Values

Framework (CVF) of Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1983). Following their argument, organizational culture can vary according to two dimensions. The first dimension is named organization focus - an internal or external focus. The second dimension is the structure of an organization which can be focused on flexibility or control.

(20)

20 These two dimensions combined form a framework with four quadrants. Figure 2 visualized this framework. Every quadrant represents a culture type that defines the central core values within an organization. Moreover, the central core value of each quadrant is contrary to the core value at the other end of the continuum, which has given the model its name: The Competing Values Framework (CVF). The following cultures are defined: clan culture, adhocracy, hierarchy and market culture. Although no organization fits into only one culture type, an organization has more or less the characteristics of a specific type (Cameron & Quinn, 2006).

A clan culture has a flexible organizational structure. Due to the emphasis on collaboration, trust, support, common values and communication, and tolerance this type of culture is known as clan culture. Within this culture, people highly value social contact and good relations. Building on cohesion and involvement are core objectives (Hartnell et al., 2011). This is facilitated by leaders through building trust with each other and fostering belongingness and unity.

An adhocracy culture is focused on a flexible organizational structure. Within this type of organization, there is a quick response to a changing environment. Pioneering initiatives, creativity and innovation are appreciated and central issues. Decentralization and delegation are important element regarding the working style (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). By keeping the future in mind, employees experience an area of freedom to explore and realize work on their own. Conflicts are considered to useful lesson to solve with each other. Core objectives are innovation and growth (Hartnell et al., 2011). Managers continue to upgrade their organization by providing a compelling vision and put an emphasis on new ideas, technology, flexibility and adaptability.

For the market culture, the focus is on its environment - their external relations - such as their clients, suppliers, stakeholders and regulatory authorities. Managers are central in this culture and together with the employees, the manager pursue a high amount of rationality. This culture type revolves around quick work and achieving goals that have been set

previously. Creating profit, obtaining market share, revenue, brand recognition and response speed are market culture’s core objectives (Hartnell et al., 2011). Managers are focused on clarifying the organization’s objectives and improving its competitive position through labor input and productivity.

An organization focused on control and an internal structure is a hierarchical culture. This culture represents for humans, goals and processes which lead to reliable and predictable results. Order, systematic work and centralization are important elements. Therefore, this

(21)

21 culture is mainly focused on planning, efficient systems and processes. Managers build on the organization by optimizing processes, cutting costs and determining procedures and policies. Previous studies have focused on the different managerial and behavioral expectations, depending on the organizational culture that dominates. In other words, what behavior is effective within a certain culture.

Building on the model of Quinn & Rohrbaugh (1983), that provides specification about leadership roles in the CVF, Lawrence, Lenk & Quinn (2009) developed a new

framework to define what behavior and managerial roles are useful in a context. Derived from this model, managers within a Clan culture – internal and flexible focus – should be a 1) facilitator: stimulating participation, or 2) Emphasizer: demonstrating concern, or Mentor: developing individuals. Managers within an Adhocracy culture – external and flexible focus - should be 1) Innovator: stimulating serious change, or 2) Visionary: anticipating clients demands, or 3) Motivators: inspiring individuals to surpass what is expected of them.

Managers within a Hierarchical culture – internal and stable focus – need to be a 1) Monitor: expecting precise production, or 2) Coordinator: regulating projects, or 3) Regulators: clarifying procedures. Managers within a Market culture – external and stable focus- should be a: 1) Producer: design a ‘work hard’ ethic, or a 2) Competitor: concentrating on

competition, or 3) Driver – highlighting speed (Lawrence et al., 2009).

Considering these organizational culture types and associated effective managerial behavior, it can be suggested that certain types stimulate and certain types constrain managers to act in an inclusive manner. To act in an inclusive manner, two behavior types are

elaborated upon: belongingness and uniqueness. Firstly, for the creation of belongingness, the emphasis is put on group forming, ensuring equity and justice for all group members and stimulating all group member to involve in decision-making.

It can be assumed that this behavior will be expressed largely in an organization with a flexible and internal focus. As discussed previously, this type -the clan culture- encourages collaboration and group formation by emphasizing the common values of the group. Moreover, cohesion and involvement of all members are core objectives for such organizations. Consequently, this ‘do things together’ mentality is line with one of the behavior types distinguished for inclusive leadership. However, this does not apply to the other behavior type; uniqueness. An (over)emphasis on cohesion and unanimity may prevent individuals from expressing and including diverse contribution because they are afraid of not being accepted. The same goes for organizations with a hierarchical culture. If an

(22)

22 on standardized and efficient processes and give minimal attention to perspectives varying from these processes. As a consequence, no inclusion exists, rather assimilation (Shore et al., 2011). A culture that stimulates individuals to fully contribute and express diverse

perspectives is the adhocracy culture. Organizations with such a culture encourage new ideas, innovation and emphasis flexibility. Nonetheless, this culture type could constitute obstacles to a sense of belongingness. Individual contributions can be seen as valuable for the success of the organization, but individuals are not treated as group members. Consequently, instead of inclusion, differentiation exists (Shore et al., 2011). It seems that the market culture type is the least nourishing base for inclusive behavior. Its focus on doing things fast, short term performance and competence may stimulate conflict. Also, considering the neglect of the humanitarian aspect, this culture type may prevent managers from creating a sense of belongingness and valuing uniqueness.

2.5 Conceptual model

In this model, two relations are shown: The relation between organization culture and inclusive leadership, and the relation between diversity perspective and inclusive leadership. The organizational and diversity perspective are the independent variables that affect

inclusive leadership, the independent variable. Firstly, it assumed that the integration-and-learning perspective will help foster inclusive leadership behavior since then leaders will focus on both individuals’ needs -belongingness and uniqueness. Theory shows that the other

Organizational culture • Clan culture • Adhocracy culture • Hierarchy culture • Market culture Inclusive leadership • Facilitates belongingness • Values uniqueness Diversity perspective

• Discrimination- and- Fairness perspective

• Access-and-Legitimacy perspective

(23)

23 two perspective rather limit inclusive leadership because from these perspectives managers will be solely focused on facilitating belongingness or valuing uniqueness, not both needs at the same time. Therefore, it is expected that managers who see variety as a source of learning that needs to be integrated are more likely to convey inclusive leadership behavior. Secondly, evidence has proved that organizational culture influences the behavior of individuals.

Therefore, it is assumed that the organizational culture has an impact on the occurrence of inclusive leadership. Based on the CVF and effective leadership styles per culture, it is suggested that clan and adhocracy cultures are most likely to foster inclusive leadership. In contrast, hierarchical and market cultures, requires leadership styles that are the least in line with inclusive leadership. Therefore, within such cultures, inclusive leadership behavior will be restricted.

(24)

24

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter will focus on the methodology of the research. The perspective from which the research was done and the method of how the data was collected and analyzed will be explained and justified. Furthermore, this chapter will elaborate upon how the reliability and validity of this research is guaranteed. For this research, the approach of a single case study is used. The chosen case is ProRail and all respondents are managers of ProRail.

3.1 Case description

The case of ProRail is used to achieve the goal of this research: to gain deeper insight into diversity perspectives, the organizational culture and how these factors are related to inclusive behavior. A case study is suitable to examine those factors for several reasons. Case studies focus on gaining detailed interpretations, descriptions and explanations of involved

participants in a certain context. Moreover, the goal of case-studies is to map certain processes by studying intensively a set of variables in order to explain social changes or a social phenomenon (Swanborn, 1996). Therefore, case studies are specifically useful for broad questions.

ProRail is the Dutch railway manager and is responsible for the management, maintenance and laying of the railway infrastructure in the Netherlands. As they state: “We connect people, cities and organizations by rail, now and in the future. We make a

comfortable journey and sustainable transport possible” (ProRail, Mission). ProRail has three ambitions for the Netherlands, external ambitions: 1) ProRail connects (Verbindt): for the mobility of the future, we develop the railway infrastructure; 2) ProRail improves (Verbetert): we make the mobility by rail as trustworthy as possible, now and in the future. 3) ProRail becomes sustainable (Verduurzaamt): we make mobility by rail as sustainable as possible, now and in the future (ProRail, internal document, n.d.). To achieve these external ambitions, ProRail has drawn up four internal ambitions that are focused on creating an effective and efficient work environment. Firstly, ProRail concentrates on the scope for investing

(investeringsruimte): we need scope for investing to invest in our ambitions and to facilitate growth in train kilometers. Secondly, Performance and developing culture (prestatie & ontwikkelcultuur): we challenge each other and ourselves to continuously improve our performance. Thirdly, Strategic clarity (Strategische duidelijkheid): bringing the ambitions to life with all employees of ProRail. Lastly, Chain and roles clarity (keten- en rolduidelijkheid): we work effectively together with other rail sector parties (ProRail, internal document, n.d.).

(25)

25 The core values of ProRail are demonstrated figure 3: Passion for rail (Hart voor het spoor), Service oriented (Servicegericht), Targeted (Doelgericht) and Interplay (Samenspel). In short, these four values show that employees of ProRail should have a passion for railway and continuously want to improve, and collaborate to achieve the organizational set goals and results. Being trustworthy, team effort and treating colleagues and external parties with respect are emphasized (ProRail, internal document, 2019). As argued, everyone receives equal opportunities and employees are solely assessed on the basis of their professional competences, behavior and attitudes. No one is judged by their gender, age, handicap, race, skin, color, belief, ethnicity, sexual orientation or marital status (ProRail, internal document, 2019).

This is also reflected in the employee and leadership visions. Those visions focus on performance, development, collaboration. Furthermore, the leadership vision elaborates on this by touching upon steering on performance, coaching on development and collaborating in confidence. Leaders are expected to bring people, teams and departments together and create an integral coherence. Moreover, leaders should be focused on changing, steering, coaching and challenging. These elements reflect that it is important leaders support employees to develop, show courage and personal leadership through providing targeted and effective attention (ProRail, internal document, 2019).

(26)

26 ProRail is a proper case to deliver on the goal of this research for several reasons. Firstly, ProRail is a semi-public organization, and transforming into an independent administrative body (Zelfstandig Bestuursorgaan, ZBO), which may affect the dominating organization culture or the view on diversity perspective. This, in turn, may influence managerial and inclusive behavior. To elaborate, ProRail is in the process of becoming an ZBO. This process has been initiated because ProRail invests 2 billion taxpayers’ money in the maintenance of the Dutch railway. It was argued that this public task requires proper public accountability which is easier to ensure when the organization becomes an ZBO instead of a BV. Although this transformation does not have any consequences for rail investments, employees or travelers (Rijksoverheid, 2020), it is interesting to see whether this has any implications for, especially, the diversity perspectives of managers at ProRail. It is assumed that public and private organizations contain differences with regard to the motivation to focus on diversity (Groeneveld & Van de Walle, 2010). In public organizations, compared to private

organizations, the egalitarian thinking is more dominating as egalitarian thinking is implicitly laid down in the Dutch constitutions, and it’s their social responsibility to serve as an example for the private sector (Çelik, 2014). A private organization, on the other hand, may be more inclined to focus on diversity for strategically reasons, to improve organizational performance and results (Groeneveld & Van de Walle, 2010). Given the semipublic character of ProRail, it is interesting what managers at ProRail think of diversity and how this may affect their

managerial behavior.

Secondly, ProRail faces a number of challenging tasks upcoming years that may influence the organizational culture and need for diversity, which in turn potentially have an impact on inclusive leadership behavior. As previously named, it is ProRail’s job to allocate infrastructure capacity to the different transport operators and to manage rail traffic. However, given the (expected) growth in the number of train passengers and the fact that ProRail

already makes maximum use of its rail capacity, drastic innovations and improvement are needed to meet the demand. ProRail has announced to increase the amount of passenger trains and goods trains by 30% in 2030 (ProRail, 2019). To do so, more is needed than adjustments in the infrastructure, also other aspects need to be considered to deliver on this goal.

One aspect is the organizational culture which moves towards a performance and developing culture. As mentioned above, ProRail tries to create an environment in which performance, development and collaboration is the norm in order to fulfill the (future) expectations and demands (ProRail, internal document n.d). Moreover, ProRail faces a shortage of sufficient qualified personal. Therefore, a focus on recruitment campaigns and

(27)

27 internal develop opportunities is essential to remaining an attractive employer. Upcoming years internal mobility and diversity is a central focus point (ProRail, internal document, n.d.) As a result, employees are expected to involved in discussion and make clear agreements with one another, give and receive feedback, and experience space and support. To make expected behavior more tangible, a model of ProRail’s core values and an employees’ vision

(medewerkersvisie) and leadership vision (leiderschapsvisie) is created (ProRail, internal document, n.d.). In addition, ProRail introduced the ‘3, 5, 7- model’. This model provides managers and employees a guideline through which mobility, development, sustainable employability, and ambitions can be discussed and shaped. In short, it means that the first three years an employee is focused on getting familiar to its job. Then, one should think about new carrier steps, and finally, take new steps for a new workplace (ProRail, n.d.). Another point is that every employee is promised to get a budget of 1000 euros a year to spend on training, courses and other development (ProRail, internal document, n.d.). Lastly, a new program is introduced at the traffic control posts, namely Koers VL. As explained, the

growing numbers of travelers requires a stricter discipline (ProRail, internal document, 2018). This means that they want to manage the operation systematically, instead of reacting ad hoc. As is stated, ad hoc decisions are mostly suboptimal which ProRail can no longer afford with a growing number of travelers.Part of the working method at the traffic control posts, is the performance dialogue (Prestatiedialoog). This entails having conversations collectively about what is going well and what could be done better (ProRail, internal document 2020).

Therefore, by having conversations about the performance at every level of traffic control post, it is expected the organization can better steer on performance and more initiatives for improvement will spring up. In addition, this new working method involves a clear structure, a clear start and end of the services and provides a good connecting between operation and staff. In doing so, more autonomy will be felt, and everyone's knowledge is used (ProRail, 2020). This new focus on performance and development of employees - which is valued in a clan culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2006)- may have some implications for managerial behavior, and is suggested to positively relate to inclusive behavior of managers at ProRail.

3.2 Research perspective

For this research, a qualitative approach is used to conduct empirical research. This was done in three iterative phases, using two data collection techniques. In phase one, conversations were held with eight employees of ProRail from 2 to 25 February to orient and understand in

(28)

28 what way ProRail currently deals with inclusive leadership. Based on these conversations, I was able to identify relevant issues and concepts such as the difference in perception of the organizational culture, which I included in my research. In phase two, a questionnaire was sent to all 15 respondents to measure and determine how the respondents experience the organizational culture. The questionnaire of Cameron & Quinn (2006) is used to measure organizational culture. The questionnaire contains six questions and establishes how an

individual experience the organizational culture at this moment. In addition, this questionnaire also asks respondents to think about they think the organizational culture should be in the future to realize certain aspirations. However, since the goal of this research is to see how the current experienced culture may influence current behavior, respondents are not asked about their aspirations.

The questionnaire was sent to them at least one week before the interview took place and had to be returned at least two days in advance. This process enabled me to adapt the interview questions based on individual results. In phase three, semi-structured interviews were used to deepen the understanding respondents’ experience of the organizational culture, diversity perspective and inclusive behavior. All the interviews were held individually. In addition, to ensure anonymity, all respondents have been allocated a number.

Nonetheless, the outbreak of the COVID-19 and the national measures that followed have made it impossible to have physical contact with my respondents. Therefore, all

interviews have been conducted through Microsoft Teams. Interviewing via Microsoft Teams offered a couple of advantages. Firstly, while being at different locations, the researcher and the participant could see each other during the interview. This is beneficial in the sense that it provides the opportunity for the interviewer to conduct research at any place and for the participants to choose a comfortable place of their own choice (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014). The latter point may allow someone to feel less uneasy and pressured because they associate it with a safe location (Hanna, 2012). Secondly, interviewing via Microsoft Teams saves money and time since there is no need to travel to meet each other. In addition, this makes it easier to interview participants that are positioned at different locations and to find an appropriate moment for the interview. For this research, this is certainly an advantage due to the fact that managers of ProRail are spread out across the country.

However, interviewing via Microsoft Teams is also associated with challenges. For example, connectivity problems may occur, causing pauses and delays; the speaker’s voice may not be audible (e.g. background noise); reading body language and other nonverbal cues is limited, and, it makes it hard to ask personal question due to the fall of intimacy and

(29)

29 personal contact (Seitz, 2016). To cope with these challenges, the following preparations and actions have been made: before interviewing, my participant and I checked and confirmed the stability of the internet connection, we both chose a quiet place for the interview to maximally reduce noise or distractions, we talked more clearly and slowly, we openly talked about repeating questions and reactions, and I have paid extra attention to my own facial expressions (nodding and smiling to give a sense of security and safety) and the facial expressions of the participants.

3.3 Selection of respondents

This research is focused, on the one hand, on the diversity perspectives of managers within ProRail and how they perceive the organizational culture. On the other hand, their inclusive behavior will be examined. With these focus points, this research will purposively select managers. ProRail defines managers as an employee who has one or more employees under himself/herself in the organization chart. This employee is responsible for the supervision and management of the employees in question. This can be a manager on team and departmental level (ProRail, internal document, data analytics). In order to provide a representative overview of ProRail, managers from different divisions across ProRail are selected. ProRail contains of nine entities, divided into three categories: Management (Directie), Finance (Financiën) and Operation (Operatie) and supervised by the board of directors (see figure 4). In total, ProRail has 271 managers, divided over the three categories. The Management part has 34 managers (12,6%), Finance has 43 managers (15,8%) and Operation has 194 managers (71,6%). During phase one of this research, I discovered there may be differences in

perception of organizational culture across managers working in different entities. For this reason, it is interesting to compare these entities and see what working in a certain entity means for the inclusive behavior of manager. Based on the percentages, two managers from Management, three from Finance and ten from Operation were selected. Moreover, for the selection, the male-female ratio in each category is considered. Since the male-female ratio within the management layers of ProRail is not equal (74% male, 26% female in total), it is interesting to see whether any differences between male and female managers exists,

especially in the Operation, where only 21% of the managers is female. After these thoughts were considered, the HR data analyst randomly selected the managers within each category. This has reduced the possibility of bias in the selection process.

(30)

30 Figure 4. Organization Chart ProRail.

Table 2

Respondents, arranged per organization unit

Organization unit layer 1 Organization unit layer 2 M/F Respondent Directie Capaciteitsmanagement F 1 Communicatie M 2 Financien Finance F 3 Procurement M 4 M 5 Operatie Assetmanagement M 6 F 7 M 8 ICT M 9 Projecten M 10 Verkeersleiding M 11 F 12 M 13 F 14 M 15

CEO

(Directie) (Financiën)

CFO

COO

(Operatie)

Procurement Projecten ICT

Assest-management Verkeers-leiding

Capaciteits-management Communi-catie

(31)

31 3.4 Operationalization

The concepts that have been operationalized are diversity perspectives, organizational culture, and inclusive leadership. For the operationalization of the concepts previous mentioned, the concepts have been divided into definition, dimension and indicators. Table 3 shows how each concept is operationalized.

Table 3 Coding table.

Concept Definition Dimensions Indicators

Diversity perspective Expectations and normative beliefs concerning diversity and its role in their team (Ely & Thomas, 2001, p. 234).

Discrimination-and-fairness perspective;

Diversity is considered to be needed to ensure equality and justice (moral imperative) and eliminate discrimination. Color -blindness is present.

Access-and-legitimacy perspective;

Diversity is considered to enhances legitimacy and access to diverse markets and clients.

Integration-and-learning perspective (Ely & Thomas, 2001).

Diversity is considered to be a resource for learning and will enhance work processes.

Organizational culture The set of taking-for-granted and shared values, underlying assumptions and

expectations of a certain group, and that regulates how the group thinks about, reacts to and perceives its diverse surroundings (Schein, 1996).

Clan culture; People trust and are loyal to the organization and its

membership. Value of

collaboration, teamwork, close and supportive work relations. Open communication,

development, involvement and participation of all employees are dominating artifacts. The organizations’ effectiveness is based on employee commitment and satisfaction.

(32)

32 Adhocracy culture; People understand the impact

and significance of the task. Emphasis is put on growth, autonomy and variety. Creativity, risk-taking and quickly moving forwards are dominating artifacts. The organization's’ effectiveness is based on innovation

Hierarchy culture; People have clear roles and procedures are well regulated and formally outlined in rules. Emphasis is put on

communication, control, structure and consistency. Predictability and compliance are dominant artifacts. The organization’s effectiveness is based on smooth

operationalizing, time frames and efficiency.

Market culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2006).

People have clear goals and are remunerated on the basis of their achievements. Value is placed on competition, achievements and communication. Increasing the customer base and market share, competitiveness are dominant aspects. The

organization's’ effectiveness is based on increased profits, market share, productivity. Inclusive leadership Leader behaviors that

facilitate the perception of belongingness in the team and value for

Facilitates belongingness

- Supporting team members as team members;

- Ensuring justice and equity within the team;

(33)

33 uniqueness in the team

while contributing to results and processes of the team (Randel et al., 2018, p. 191)

- Shares decision-making Values uniqueness - Encourage diverse

contributions

- Helps group members to fully provide their unique

contribution in the team.

For the operationalization of diversity perspectives, the study of Ely & Thomas (2001) has been used. Only some small adjustments have been made in order to adapt them to the scope of this research. Questions aimed at operationalizing inclusive leadership are based on the research of Randel et al. (2018). In this study, Randel et al. have operationalized the concept inclusive leadership and provided five behavior types. These types are included in the

questions. Lastly, questions relating to organizational culture are based on the Organizational Cultural Assessment Instrument (OCAI) of Quinn & Cameron (2006). This instrument is built in accordance with the Competing Value Framework. This framework provides four

organizational cultures, as to how an organization functions, how cooperation takes place and which norms and values are applied. The questionnaire contains six categories (dominant characteristics, the management of the organization, personnel management, strategy, and success criteria) each consisting four statements. Based on the results of each participants, elaborating questions were asked during the interview. The questions of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1. The complete topic list can be found in Appendix 2.

3.5 Informed consent

To inform my selected participants, I contacted them by email. In this email, firstly, I introduced myself and told them about my research. I informed them about the goal of this research and what was expected of them. Thereafter, I explained to them how they were selected and why I wanted to interview them. Subsequently, I asked their permission to have an interview with me for this research. At the end of each interview, the respondent validation was requested. This means that transcripts of each interview were sent to the particular

participant for an extra check. This gave the participant the opportunity to make any changes if necessary.

Inclusive Leadership in Practice