“Is there still an ‘I’ in teams?”
A quantitative research into the relationship between gender, leadership inclusiveness and individual psychological and team empowerment on job autonomy
MSc Business Administration
Specialization: Leadership and Management Master thesis final
Primary supervisor: R.E. van Geffen Secondary supervisor: dr. S.T. Mol Author: Pauline van ‘t Hoff, 10220615 23rd of June 2017
2 Statement of originality
This document is written by Pauline van ‘t Hoff 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 Abstract
Due to internal and external organizational developments, inclusive leadership is proven to be an effective form of relational leadership concerning its socio-interrelation approach. The current research has made an attempt to examine the consequences of inclusive leadership on the prejudice of the leadership style of female leaders, the experience of job autonomy among employees, and individual and team empowerment. The aim of the present study is to provide a perspective on the most effective management practice within the dynamic and reciprocal influences of both team and individual level empowerment. A model was attained and tested with PROCESS analyses. For this quantitative research data was collected from multiple teams and leaders in Dutch organizations (N = 273). In correspondence with previous academic findings, the current research has identified a positive relation between female leaders and the experience of employees towards their inclusive leadership practice. Additionally, the results indicated that inclusive leadership has an insignificant but positive direct effect on job autonomy. Both individual and team empowerment were found to positive, significantly and fully mediate the relation between inclusive leadership and job autonomy. Contradictory, team empowerment was expected to have an adverse mediating effect on the direct effect of inclusive leadership on job autonomy. The theoretical contributions of the present research are related to the confirmation of the beneficial outcomes inclusive leadership has on both the cognitive side of individual and team empowerment and the work characteristic of job autonomy.
Keywords: inclusive leadership; job autonomy; gender; individual psychological
empowerment; team empowerment
4 Tabel of Contents
Index of Figures and Tables ... 5
Index of Appendices ... 5
1. Introduction ... 6
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses ... 11
2.1 Leader inclusiveness ... 12
2.2 Leader inclusiveness and gender ... 14
2.3 Leader inclusiveness and job autonomy ... 16
2.4 Empowerment: Individual versus team empowerment ... 18
2.5 Leader inclusiveness, individual psychological empowerment, and job autonomy ... 21
2.6 Leader inclusiveness, team empowerment, and job autonomy ... 23
3. Methods ... 26 3.1 Research Design ... 26 3.2. Measures ... 29 3.3 Data Analysis ... 31 4. Results ... 32 4.1 Descriptive statistics ... 32
4.2 Hierarchical regression analyses... 34
4.3 Mediation analysis ... 35
4.3.1 Inclusive leadership and job autonomy ... 35
4.3.2 Individual psychological empowerment ... 36
4.3.3 Team empowerment ... 38
5. Discussion ... 40
5.1 Discussion ... 40
5.2 Limitations ... 43
5.3 Theoretical implications and directions for future research ... 45
5.4 Practical implications ... 48 6. Conclusion ... 50 References ... 52 Appendix ... 66 Appendix A ... 66 Appendix B ... 67 Appendix C ... 68
5 Index of Figures and Tables
Figure 1.1 Conceptual research model
Table 4.1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Table 4.2 Hierarchical regression model of Inclusive Leadership
Table 4.3 Results of PROCESS analysis with independent variable Inclusive Leadership Table 4.4 Results of PROCESS analysis with independent variable Inclusive Leadership Table 4.5 Results of PROCESS analysis with independent variable Inclusive Leadership Table 4.6 Results of PROCESS analysis with independent variable Inclusive Leadership Table 4.7 Results of PROCESS analysis with independent variable Inclusive Leadership
Index of Appendices Appendix A
Appendix B Appendix C
6 1. Introduction
On the 21st of January 2017, almost half a million women and men from all over the world huddled in the streets of Washington D.C., USA. The reason for this large-scale gathering was the Women’s March to protect legislation and policies regarding human rights, immigration reform, freedom of religion and equal work rights for women worldwide (Brooks, 2017). As part of the women’s march principles were formulated about female workers’ rights to strive for an economy that is powered by transparency, accountability, security, and equity (“Guiding vision and definition of principles,” 2017). Although the number of female workers in organizations and more importantly their ‘increasing presence in traditionally male roles’ (Heilman, 2012, p. 115) has increased in the last decennia, high managerial positions are still structurally more often occupied by men than by women (Eagly & Karau, 1991). Previous research has indicated that women are not yet free of the burden of when it comes to judgments regarding the fit between their leadership style and effective leadership within organizations (Ryan, Haslam, Hersby & Bongiorno, 2011; Heilman, 2012). This result can be related to the incongruence between common leadership attributes of female managers and stereotypical characteristics of successful leadership practices (Heilman, 2012).
However, where before effective management was related to male leadership attributes, such as an autocratic and directive leadership style, nowadays effective leadership is characterized by a more individualized consideration and an inspirational, motivational approach (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & Van Engen, 2003). An example of such managerial practice is leader inclusiveness (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Leader inclusiveness can be defined as a leadership style whereby managers are open, accessible and available for employees input (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Additionally, inclusive leaders hold the capacity to treat all employees in a fair and equitable way by valuing all members’ contributions (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv, 2010). These characteristics hold high similarity with female leader attributes, such as a collaborative and supportive management practice (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan & Nauts, 2012). Therefore, the rise of inclusive leadership within organizations can be a great contribution to the advantage of a female leadership style in organizations (Eagly & Karau, 1991; Rosette & Tost, 2010; Heilman, 2012).
7 However, to date, no research has examined the possibility of inclusive leadership to hold power to diminish the lack of fit between female attributes and stereotypical characteristics of leaders.
Besides, the emerge of inclusive leadership in organizations, major developments, such as technological innovations and the global shift from manufacturing industries to knowledge and service economies have a high impact on the development and context of work (Chen & McDonald, 2015). The nature of work has become more ambiguous, uncertain and difficult to manage, and for that reason, employees need to become more adaptive and responsible in their work (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). The work characteristic of job autonomy is a solution to overcome these challenges within organizations. Job autonomy is known for enabling a proactive and innovative manner of behavior among employees by granting them more control over work-related decision-making processes (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; de Spiegelaere, van Gyes & van Hootegem, 2016). Job autonomy can be conceptualized as a determinant of many positive organizational outcomes, such as better organizational performance, employee well-being, and intrinsic motivation (van Wingerden, Derks & Bakker, 2017; Park, 2016). These positive outcomes directly influence the workforce to stay competitive during the high pace of current organizational developments in the context of work (Langfred & Rockmann, 2016).
Leadership is an important antecedent in fostering feelings of job autonomy among subordinates (Lanfred & Rockmann, 2016). Former research has stated that inclusive leaders hold the ability to provide employees with a sense of acceptance and control in their work (Nishii & Mayer, 2009). Inclusive leaders are known for creating a transparent work environment whereby participative decision making is facilitated (Boekhorst, 2015) and employees are given access to necessary information and resources (Roberson, 2006). These statements can predict a direct relationship between the concepts of inclusive leadership and job autonomy. When leaders grant ample job autonomy to their employees, this signals that an organization values their input and recognizes subordinates’ contributions to organizations goals (Park, 2016). Nevertheless, to date, no research has examined the direct effect of leader inclusiveness on the experienced job autonomy of employees.
Besides external changes, such as technological innovations and globalization, internal structures of organizations are going through a transformation as well. Organizations are moving
8 towards a more decentralized and flattened type of hierarchical structure (Houghton & Yoho, 2005). These developments ask for involvement and a distribution of responsibilities among all employees in the workforce (Baird & Wang, 2010). Empowerment is a way for managers to delegate power and authority by involving employees in decision-making processes and granting them control and discretion in their work (Langfred & Rockmann, 2016). Empowerment is a commonly examined managerial process within human resource and business studies and has gained more attention in the last decade. Previous research has related empowerment to times where ‘global competition and change require employee initiative and innovation’ (Drucker, 1988 in Spreitzer, 1995, p. 1442). Empowered employees are able to work in a more flexible, responsive and innovative way (Gómez & Rosen, 2001; Mathieu, Gilson & Ruddy, 2006) and hold the ability to respond at the right time to environmental changes (Ergeneli, Ari & Metin, 2007).
Empowerment can be conceptualized as a multilevel construct in organizations (Seibert, Wang & Coutright, 2011). On the one hand, individuals can experience an empowered psychological state. This form of empowerment can be named as individual psychological empowerment (Lee & Koh, 2006). Individual psychological empowerment is based on a personal interpretation of empowerment and may vary by employee (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen & Rosen, 2007). Management practice is an important situational attribute of empowerment that fosters the employee’s empowered cognitions regarding those leadership attributes (Spreitzer, 1995). Inclusive leadership is stated to have an impact on the individual consideration of empowerment by valuing and appreciating the personal input of employees (Eagly et al., 2003). Thereby, inclusive leadership is known for the establishment of a trustful interaction between a manager and a subordinate (Nishii & Mayer, 2009). A trustworthy relationship between a leader and a follower can enhance cognitions of empowerment within employees (Gómez & Rosen, 2001; Kark, Shamir & Cen, 2003; Spreitzer, 2008). By granting employees more empowerment, they are given the responsibility to participate in work-related decision-making processes actively. By doing so, employees are proven to experience more control and job autonomy in their work (Spreitzer, 1995; Menon, 2001; Carless, 2004; Logan & Ganster, 2007).
9 On the other hand, the high pace and diversity of work in current organizations have led to the emerge of teams in the workforce (Chen & Kanfer, 2006). Teams hold the capacity to be more flexible and responsive to environmental changes or demands in comparison to individual employees (Mathieu et al., 2006). The management practice of inclusive leadership is proven to be a valuable tool for managing teams (Carmeli et al., 2010). This is related to the fact that leader inclusiveness is related to leader behavior that invites and appreciates the input of all team members (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Additionally, inclusive leadership holds power to enhance feelings of psychological safety. Therefore team members will experience the freedom to express suggestions and decisions in their team (Carmeli et al., 2010). By creating a shared team identity, inclusive leaders are able to positively affect the level of empowerment in a team (Shapiro, Furst, Spreitzer & Von Glinow, 2002; Chen et al., 2007). Team empowerment can be achieved through a set of shared cognitions in a team and an empowering climate that consists out of a culture of information sharing and team accountability (Seibert, Silver & Randolph, 2004).
When it comes to managing teams, leaders must distribute their efforts of inclusion across multiple employees. This allocation can have a significant impact on the empowerment of individual employees and the collective of a team (Gotsis & Grimani, 2016). This is because leaders of a team can face difficulties to keep a close eye on the individual perception of each team member and with that the unique contribution of each individual to the team (Chen et al., 2007). When it comes to creating a climate of inclusion within the workforce, leaders must engage in the dual focus of accepting and appreciating the unique and diverse input of each employee, while setting up appropriate procedures to accomplish group goals (Shore et al., 2011). By granting teams with empowerment, leaders may be distracted from the individual level of empowerment of each team member. Thereby, research has stated that because employees have to share power over decision-making processes, resources and responsibilities among team members, this may lead to a decline in the experience of job autonomy by individual members of a team (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). To date, no research has answered this proposition of the consequences of empowering individuals and teams simultaneously.
10
H1 F + H2 +
H3a + H3b +
H4a + H4b -
Altogether, there can be concluded that there is a gap in research on ‘the dynamic and reciprocal influences of the individual-team level interface’ (Chen & Kanfer, 2006, p. 224). The aim of the current research is to build a consensus of how individual and team processes can be managed simultaneously by identifying the effect of inclusive leadership on the management practice regarding teams and the individuals that comprise them. Additionally, research states that there is a gap in the literature on inclusive leadership towards contextual factors, such as the difference between male and female leaders (Mitchell et al., 2015). Moreover, until now there is no research on the direct relationship between job autonomy and a particular leadership style, such as inclusive leadership. Because of these gaps in research, the following questions can arise; Is there a difference in the effectiveness of inclusive leadership on the individual and team based level in relationship to empowerment? And if so, does this difference have an effect on the individual experience or team level evaluation of job autonomy among employees? To answer these questions, the following research question has been formulated:
‘To what extent is there a difference between a male and a female leader in leader inclusiveness and what is the effect of inclusive leadership on job autonomy, when mediated by individual psychological empowerment and team empowerment?’
Figure 1.1 illustrates the research question by a conceptual model of the research design. Figure 1.1 Conceptual research model
Gender Leader inclusiveness
Individual Empowerment
Job autonomy
Team
11 The current research has the goal to extend the literature on leader inclusiveness and job autonomy and provide insights on how leadership, gender, and teamwork affect the individual perception of employees. In doing so, an attempt has been made to provide a clarification of how managerial practices and the extensive growth of teamwork in organizations can effect different ways in how job autonomy is manifested in today’s workplace. The current research will be conducted by stepping aside from the traditional focus on the perceptions of individuals but apply a more holistic approach whereby antecedents as leadership style, gender, teamwork and their particular consequences are taken into account. Kirkman & Rosen (1999) argue in their research that there is a call for research in the field of team effectiveness and teamwork that examines empowerment at the individual and team level simultaneously. The current research will do so by discussing the effect of inclusive leadership on the individual psychological empowerment of employees together with the cross-level relationship between individual and team level perceptions of empowerment, and their effects on the experience of job autonomy.
The first part of this research will consist of a theoretical framework that will support the research model and include a state of the art overview of existing literature within the research field of prior discussed topics. The second section of this research will be built on a methodological part where several statistic measurements will be conducted to achieve the results of the current study. The methodological part of this research is based on quantitative analysis. Furthermore, the result will be formulated in a discussion part, and the outcomes of the quantitative research will be brought back to theoretical and practical implications. Additionally, the limitations of the present research will be presented. In the final part of this study suggestions for future research will be given. The research will be concluded with a brief conclusion.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
In this section, the variables as viewed in the conceptual model will be discussed built on findings of academic literature. The theoretical background provides a literature review whereby the research model will gain explanation on all incorporated concepts. The upcoming overview will serve as a
12 conspectus of the current academic knowledge, and endeavors to touch upon relevant concepts and theories related to the research model.
2.1 Leader inclusiveness
Inclusive leadership or leader inclusiveness is a particular form of relational leadership that is characterized by a high-quality social exchange relation between managers and employees (Nishii & Mayer, 2009). This high-quality social exchange relation is established by managers who invite and appreciate all employees’ contributions to the workforce by addressing employees’ uniqueness and acknowledging individual dissimilarities (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Guilleaume et al., 2014). Leader inclusiveness can be defined as the managerial practice of treating all employees in a fair and equitable way (Guilleaume et al., 2014). Thereby, inclusive leadership holds power to exhibit an open, accessible and available management practice (Hirak, Peng, Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2012), whereby employees feel that their input is valued and appreciated in the workforce (Carmeli et al., 2010). As a result, employees will feel more psychological safety and engagement towards their organization (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Hirak et al., 2012).
Leader inclusiveness is an infant concept in academic literature. Until now the concept of inclusive leadership has not been grounded in a consistent theoretical framework (Randel et al., 2016). However, recently there has been a considerable interest in the meaning of the position of leadership in the context of the interaction and relationship with followers (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Hirak et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2015; Randel, Dean, Erhart, Cung & Shore., 2016). Regarding the advanced interest in relational leadership, it is important to develop a consistent framework related to the concept of inclusive leadership. This is because the lack of consensus within the theoretical field of inclusive leadership withholds the practical and theoretical use of this particular management practice (Shore et al., 2011). Besides the need for a consistent conceptualization of inclusive leadership, there has been little research done from the perspective of employees regarding their individual perceptions and cognitions towards the inclusiveness of their direct manager (Carmeli et al., 2010).
13 Previous research has proven that leaders play a vital part in the perceptions and cognitions of employees towards their work environment (Boekhorst, 2015). The degree to which employees feel their input is valued by the organization is part of how individuals experience the extent of their participation in organizational processes and operations (Barak, 1999). By involving individual employees in managerial and decision-making processes, inclusive leaders are likely to have a positive effect on the engagement and psychological safety of employees towards an organization or a work team (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Hirak et al., 2012; Randel, Dean, Erhart, Chung & Shore, 2016). Critical components in this respect are the access employees have to information and resources, and the connection to supervisors and co-workers (Shore et al., 2011). To enhance employee engagement, it is important for leaders to socially integrate and validate the personal input of all employees towards organizational processes (Hirak et al., 2001). Leader inclusiveness is proven to be a valuable managerial practice because inclusive leaders genuinely take different viewpoints of employees in consideration and encourage a manner of open communication between subordinates to give all employees a voice in the organization (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). By doing so, inclusive leaders can help employees learn from failures and enhance their future performance through a supportive managerial practice (Hirak et al., 2012).
In conclusion, inclusive leadership can be named as a relational form of leadership, whereby managers are open towards their workforce and model accessibility and availability in their interaction with employees (Carmeli et al., 2010). By exhibiting an inclusive form of leadership, perceived status differences and inequalities in the workforce will be removed. By doing so, inclusive leaders hold power to invite and appreciate others’ contributions (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Mitchel et al., 2015). As a result of inclusive leadership practice, employees will experience more psychological safety and engagement towards their workforce (Carmeli et al., 2010; Randel et al., 2013).
14 2.2 Leader inclusiveness and gender
From a historical perspective, effective leadership is mostly related to task contributions that are allocated to the agentic features of men (Abele, 2003). Agentic features can be conceptualized as independence, assertiveness, and decisiveness (Eagly & Karau, 1991). Agentic characteristics are known for predicting the capabilities and success of outstanding leaders (Hoobler, Lemmon & Wayne, 2011). Females hold more communal attributes that are related to creating a caring organizational climate (Heilman, 2012). Communal attributes refer to the tendency of women to apply a compassionate treatment of others by behaving in an affectionate and interpersonally sensitive way (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly & Carli, 2007). Agentic and communal characteristics can be brought back to the difference in leadership style of men and women (Eagly & Karau, 1991; Abele, 2003; Eagly & Carli, 2003; Rosette & Tost, 2010). Male leaders engage in a more task-oriented, autocratic and directive manner of leading the workforce (Eagly & Karau, 1991). Female leaders are more focused on enhancing interpersonal relations by a social form of leadership (Eagly & Karau, 1991). Altogether, the leadership style of women is characterized as being less hierarchical and more co-operative and collaborative in comparison to male leaders (Haslam & Ryan, 2008).
Previous research has stated that female leaders are pre-judged for being less effective as a leader in comparison to men (Vecchio, 2012). When female leaders don't act following so-called gender role expectations of showing communal behavioral attributes in their managerial practice, they are mostly evaluated as being disliked and personally derogated when they perform successfully in a management task (Heilman, 2012). Prejudice happens mostly because of a stereotypical evaluation of a specific group of interest, rather than the actual qualities of the particular entity (Eagly & Carli, 2003). People are mostly negatively prejudiced when their stereotypical evaluation is incongruent with the attributes that are allocated to a particular role. For that reason, judgments about female managers are related to the incongruence in expectations people hold about female communal attributes in comparison with the historical agentic characteristics of successful leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
However, female leaders are increasingly granted with the benefit of the so-called female leadership advantage. The female leadership advantage refers to the fact that female managers may
15 hold greater capabilities of leading that are useful in today's organizations (Rossette & Tost, 2010). Organizations are becoming less hierarchical and ask for a more supportive and collaborative way of leading (Eagly & Carli, 2003). Female leaders have an advantage in these organizational developments because women are ‘skilled at inclusiveness, interpersonal relations, power sharing, and the nurturing of followers' (Vecchio, 2012, p. 647). Where male leaders exhibit more of a managerial practice that is based on an aggressive leadership style, female leaders are more inclined to hold a leadership style of co-operation (Eagly & Carli, 2003). By doing so female leaders can draw subordinates into their decision-making process by stepping up as an encouraging and helpful manager (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
As stated before, inclusive leadership is related to a relational managerial practice, whereby leaders exhibit a leadership style that is built on openness and accessibility (Carmeli et al., 2010). Inclusive leaders have the ability to enhance the engagement of their employees, by providing them possibilities to have a voice in organizational procedures (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Inclusive leadership is focused on the reduction of hierarchy and places a great emphasis on the involvement of all employees in the workforce (Mitchell et al., 2015). Female leaders are proven to exhibit a particular managerial practice that is focused on collaboration and social leadership, because of their openness and nurturing characteristics (Eagly & Karau, 1991). Thereby, female leaders are positively rated on the establishment of trustworthy interaction with their followers, by giving subordinates confidence and support (Eagly & Carli, 2007). This outcome holds great similarities with the characteristics of inclusive leadership, that is primarily built on mutual trust, respect, and mutual expectations (Nishii & Mayer, 2009).
In conclusion, previous research has identified the possibility of female leaders of gaining an advantage over male leaders when it comes to their typical leadership characteristics. From a theoretical perspective, female leaders perform a more collaborative and cooperative leadership style (Eagly & Carli, 2003). Enhancing other’s self-worth by providing employees with trust and confidence is an effective managerial practice in contemporary organizations (Rosette & Tost, 2010; Heilman, 2012). This relational approach to leadership holds significant similarities to the characteristics of inclusive leadership. Inclusive leaders operate from a perspective whereby they
16 perform a less hierarchical leadership style by exhibiting openness, availability, and accessibility towards their employees (Carmeli et al., 2010). The leadership style of female leaders has been rated as a compassionate treatment of others (Eagly & Carli, 2007). All in all, can be stated that the characteristics of female leaders hold a strong connection with inclusive leadership. For this reason, the following hypothesis can be stated;
H1: A female leader shows more inclusive leadership behavior towards her subordinates in comparison with a male leader.
2.3 Leader inclusiveness and job autonomy
Within research, there is some disagreement about how to define the concept of job autonomy (de Spiegelaere et al., 2016). This is related to the fact that job autonomy can be described as both a characteristic of work as a psychological state of employees. The establishment of the Job Characteristics Model was one of the first academic examinations that stated that job autonomy is a core job dimension when it comes to the internal motivation of employees to perform effectively in their job (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Before, job autonomy was mostly defined according to job characteristics such as the degree of freedom employees experience when scheduling work and adjudge the procedures to use in one’s job (Hackman & Oldham, 1976 in Langfred & Rockmann, 2016). However, research to date has noticed that job autonomy has a close relation with the cognitive state of employees (Park, 2016). Through the psychological state of employees, job autonomy can be defined as the extent to which employees experience self-determination and self-efficacy when ‘choosing alternative ways to approach tasks, experience ownership, and have more direct impact on outcomes’ (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012, p. 196). As a result of these conditions employees cognitively experience responsibility for the fact that the outcomes of a job depend on one’s efforts, initiatives and decisions (Volmer, Spurk & Niessen, 2012). The current research is built on the individual psychological experience of employees, because from this perspective job autonomy refers to the cognitive evaluation of employees regarding situational factors that influence job autonomy, such as leadership (Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
17 There is a particular interest in job autonomy, since it is considered as an antecedent of many favorable organizational outcomes, such as pro-activeness of employees (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012), work and organizational performance (Kuvaas, Buch, & Dysvik, 2016; Park, 2016), knowledge sharing (Llopis & Foss, 2016), and work engagement (Vera, Martínez, Lorente, & Chambel, 2016). Thereby, job autonomy has a negative effect on turnover intentions (Breaugh, 1999), stress, and burnout (Kuvaas et al., 2016). Nevertheless, these positive outcomes are proven not only to be determinants by the experience of job autonomy alone. Autonomy supportive leadership is repeatedly identified as a predictor of these outcomes in conjunction with job autonomy (Gillet, Gagné, Sauvèrge & Fouquereau, 2013; Beenen, Pichler & Levy, 2016). Autonomy supportive leadership can be defined as a managerial practice whereby leaders exhibit freedom to employees to have discretion in how to do a task and acknowledge the perspectives and cognitions of followers (Hardé & Reeve, 2009).
Autonomy supportive leadership holds great resemblance with an inclusive managerial practice, whereby a leader is open, accessible and available for the input of subordinates (Carmeli et al., 2010). In contemporary organizations, job autonomy is mostly a call from employees towards more control and discretion in one’s work (Langfred & Rockmann, 2016). For managers, it is important to invite, identify and support such requests from employees by exhibiting a managerial practice that acknowledges different demands and motivational processes within the workforce (Hardé & Reeve, 2009). Research states that job autonomy occurs when a leader signals to value the input of employees and recognizes their contributions to organizational goals (Vera et al., 2016). Inclusive leaders support autonomy because they can grant responsibility to perform work tasks autonomously, accentuate a leadership style that is open for choice rather than control, and are accessible for employees input and perspectives (Hirak et al., 2012; Gillet et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2015). As a result, employees experience to be involved in decision-making processes, by granting them with responsibilities and trust within the workforce (Shore et al., 2011). There is empirical evidence for the fact that autonomy-supportive leadership and trust is in conjunction with to what extent employees feel that they have a sense of autonomy within their jobs (Park 2016; Vera et al., 2016). Inclusive leaders can enhance the degree to which employees feel that they are a vital part of
18 the organization by providing them with the power to participate in decision-making processes and have access to resources (Shore et al., 2011).
In conclusion, job autonomy is a construct that has many positive organizational outcomes (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012, Kuvaas et al., 2016; Park, 2016; Llopis & Foss, 2016; Vera et al., 2016). When employees experience freedom, responsibility, and discretion in how to exhibit their work they will experience more job autonomy (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Leadership is an important antecedent in achieving this psychological state of autonomy among employees (Gillet et al., 2013; Beenen et al., 2016). When leaders value and recognize subordinates’ input to organizational goals, employees will experience more job autonomy within their work (Park, 2016). Inclusive leadership is known for appreciating and encouraging the input of organizational members (Mitchell et al., 2015). Through these statements, it can be stated that inclusive leadership will positively affect the experience of job autonomy among employees. For this reason, the following hypothesis can be made:
H2: Leader inclusiveness is positively related to job autonomy.
2.4 Empowerment: Individual versus team empowerment
There is an emerging interest in business literature in the concept of empowerment (Edwards & Collinson, 2002). There are two main reasons for the widespread attention of empowerment in organizational research. The first reason is related to the fact that empowerment has proven to be a valuable tool in enhancing organizational effectiveness (Keller & Dansereau, 1995). Secondly, during times of major developments and flatter organizational structures, leaders of contemporary organizations must acquire an empowering practice to lead their workforce efficiently by sharing power and control with their subordinates (Logan & Ganster, 2007).
Conger and Kanungo (1988) made one of the first attempts to define the general concept of empowerment. According to their vision, empowerment can be defined as a form of management practice whereby leaders can enhance feelings of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation by granting employees with the power and control to impact their job and work environment. When leaders do exhibit a high moral standard of expectations, integrity, and optimism, employees tend to feel more
19 empowered to pursue activities that are essential for successful task accomplishment (Avolio, Zhu, Koh & Bhatia, 2004). Lastly, empowerment does refer to the delegation of control supervisors exhibit towards their subordinates, whereby employees experience a disciplined form of autonomy related to a clear awareness of organizational expectations and priorities (Edwards & Collinson, 2002).
The attention in research to the effects of empowerment on organizational outcomes has increased since the delegation of power and authority and the rise of discretion, control and decision making power from leaders to employees (Langfred & Rockmann, 2016). Thereby, another important contextual factor that has enhanced the need for empowerment in organizations is the current switch to more team-based organizations (Chen et al., 2007). Because of this widespread switch to a more team-based workforce, managers need to combine the empowerment practice of both individuals and teams (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Gotsis & Grimani, 2016).
Individual empowerment is related to the empowered psychological state of an employee (Spreitzer, 1995). Individual psychological empowerment refers to a particular individual psychological experience and can differ between subordinates (Chen et al., 2007). A psychological state of empowerment can be defined as ‘the psychological state of a subordinate perceiving the four dimensions of meaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact, which is affected by empowering behaviors of the supervisor’ (Lee & Koh, 2001, p. 686). All these dimensions are a constellation of cognitions that cause an individual psychological state of empowerment (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Spreitzer, 1995; Menon, 2001). The delegation of power and the encouragement of self-efficacy by leaders result in these cognitions to enhance an empowered state among employees (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Examination of the contextual factors that shape individual perceptions of empowerment has identified that an energizing form of leadership can positively affect feelings of empowerment among employees by enhancing individual perceptions of self-efficacy and increasing intrinsic motivation (Menon, 2001). The contextual factor of leadership can affect the cognitions of individuals in shaping their psychological state of empowerment (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). By doing so, individual psychological empowerment can be conceptualized as a mechanism that activates the influence of contextual factors on individual attitudes and behaviors (Seibert et al., 2004).
20 Unlike the individual set of cognitions based on contextual factors that form the experience of individual psychological empowerment among employees, team empowerment is a set of collective cognitions that are shared and influenced by all members of a team. When a team experiences high levels of empowerment, they believe that the work they leverage is meaningful. Thereby, empowered teams have more discretion and choice in how to collectively perform a certain task, and they have a strong belief that their work has an impact within the organization (Seibert et al., 2011). Team empowerment refers to the four dimensions of potency, meaningfulness, autonomy, and impact (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). These dimensions are closely related to the cognitions of individual psychological empowerment, but differ by means of the fact that all dimensions are outcomes of a shared mental model among all members of a team, rather than taking external factors and individual perceptions into account (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk & Gibson, 2004; Chen et al., 2007). For that reason, team empowerment is built on ‘a shared perception of team members, concerning their team’s collective level of empowerment’ (Chen et al., 2007, p. 332). Because of these statements, contrary to individual psychological empowerment, the cognitions team members have regarding their state of empowerment is not directly affected by external factors, but more by the social interaction within a team (Liden, Wayne & Sparrow, 2000).
There is little research that has examined the dynamic and reciprocal effect of the connection between individual and team level empowerment processes. To date, there has not been an unequivocal answer to the difference between the individual-team level interface. Some research states that individual and team level empowerment processes are interconnected (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). This is because team motivation is proven to be affected by the sum of individualistic motivational processes that form the empowered state of the collective (Chen & Kanfer, 2006). Other scholars call for research that examines the levels of individual and team empowerment simultaneously but segregated (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). There is a need for multilevel theories in research, to examine the most effective management practice to identify appropriate levels of individual and team empowerment (Chen et al., 2007).
21 2.5 Leader inclusiveness, individual psychological empowerment, and job autonomy
Numerous studies have examined the concept of individual psychological empowerment and linked it to favorable outcomes within organizations. These beneficial outcomes are related to employee performance (Spreitzer, 1995; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Logan & Ganster, 2007), job satisfaction (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian & Wilk, 2001; Carless, 2004) and employee commitment (Spreitzer, 1995). Previous research has stated that an important contextual factor regarding the success of empowerment is leadership (Liden et al., 2000; Mathieu et al., 2006; Seibert et al., 2011). In particular, a supportive leadership style is positively associated with empowerment (Logan & Ganster, 2007; Baird & Wang, 2010; Carless, 2004). A supportive leadership style can hold power to connect the perceptions of control and self-efficacy that are related to empowerment (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Logan & Ganster, 2007). When leaders give employees certain directions of preferred performance outcomes and hold the ability to provide subordinates with autonomy and control, employees will experience more individual psychological empowerment (Menon, 2001).
Inclusive leadership is a form of a relational and supportive management practice (Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Carmeli et al., 2010). By managing employees in a supportive way, subordinates will attain more decision making power which will lead to a greater feeling of individual psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995). Inclusive leaders are known for building a high social exchange interaction with subordinates, by expanding employees’ responsibilities for the use of their skills and knowledge (Nishii & Mayer, 2009). Because of this, subordinates will observe the value of their work, which may lead to feelings of enhanced meaningfulness towards their jobs. Meaningfulness is one of the key cognitions of individual psychological empowerment (Spreitzer, 1995; Avolio et al., 2004). Thereby, inclusive leaders hold the ability to invite and appreciate others’ contributions to the organization, which indicates that employees hold the competence to exhibit their capabilities within the organization (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Lee & Koh, 2001). By providing subordinates with more decision making power, employees tend to experience more self-determination in their job (Spreitzer, 1995; Hirak et al., 2012). By the encouragement of diverse contributions and providing the ability to speak up freely (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Mitchel et al., 2015), inclusive leadership
22 can enhance the sense of impact employees experience when feeling individually empowered (Avolio et al., 2004).
As stated before, the four dimensions of meaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact are cognitions that enhance feelings of individual psychological empowerment among employees (Spreitzer, 1995). Inclusive leaders hold power to affect all these cognitions positively and for that reason the individual psychological empowerment of employees by their openness and accessibility (Mitchel et al., 2015; Nishii & Mayer, 2009). Besides the impact of leadership as an antecedent of the cognitive state of individual empowerment, other external factors can enhance feelings of empowerment. Other factors that are proven to have a positive effect on individual psychological empowerment are the presence of resources and information, the opportunities to learn and grow, the possibility to actively participate in the decision-making process and managerial support (Laschinger et al., 2001; Menon, 2001). ‘These socio-structural factors in the workplace are important antecedents for the occurrence of individual psychological empowerment among employees 'that foster employee perceptions of autonomy of their work' (Laschinger et al., 2001, p. 69).
Individual psychological empowerment leads to the delegation of control and discretion of work for employees (Menon, 2001). Thereby, inclusive leadership and individual psychological empowerment lead to enhanced feelings of trust, because manager and employees mutually accept and recognize each other’s influences (Mitchel et al., 2015; Carless, 2004). A trustworthy relationship between a leader and subordinates is based on effective problem solving and personal discretion (Ergeneli et al., 2007). By giving employees confidence and trust, subordinates will experience a greater feeling of autonomy within their job (Kanter, 1993; Sabiston & Laschinger, 1995). The positive effect of empowerment on job autonomy refers to the fact that job autonomy is related to the freedom individuals have regarding their decision making power and organizational activities (Shore et al., 2011). By enhancing employees’ feelings of empowerment within a trustworthy relationship between a manager and subordinates, this will enlarge the experience of job autonomy among employees (Keller & Dansereau, 1995; Sabiston & Laschinger, 1995). It is stated that a trustful relation is one of the key contributors to create an experience of job autonomy (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). This is mostly because job autonomy is related to the freedom and discretion subordinates
23 receive from their manager regarding decision making power, scheduling their work procedures, and access to resources and information (Wang & Cheng, 2010).
In conclusion, leader inclusiveness holds great similarities with a supportive form of leadership. This form of leadership has proven to have a positive effect on the individual perception of empowerment (Huang, Iun, Liu, Gong, 2010; Carless, 2004; Logan & Ganster, 2007; Baird & Wang, 2010). This is because an inclusive leadership practice will enhance the feelings of meaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact among employees (Spreitzer 1995; Lee & Koh, 2001; Avolio et al., 2004; ). Thereby, a trustful relationship enhances the experience of job autonomy (Sabiston & Laschinger, 1995). All in all can be stated that by empowering employees, through inclusive leadership, their individual feeling of empowerment will enlarge the perception of job autonomy. For this reason, the following hypotheses can be made;
H3a: Inclusive leadership is positively related to individual psychological empowerment. H3b: Individual psychological empowerment is positively related to job autonomy.
2.6 Leader inclusiveness, team empowerment, and job autonomy
To date, many research has focused on only individual psychological empowerment when examining the antecedents and outcomes of empowerment in organizations (Spreitzer, 1995; Liden et al., 2000; Carless, 2004; Logan & Ganster, 2007; Baird & Wang, 2010). However, the shift of organizations to a team-based workforce has raised the importance of examining empowerment at the individual and team level simultaneously (Chen et al., 2007). Team empowerment asks for a different management practice because leaders need to delegate equal forms of power and responsibilities over all team members to create a shared cognition of team empowerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). When team members feel equally empowered, this will enhance their feelings of power and control, and therefore they are more likely to experience cognitions that are related to team empowerment, namely potency, meaningfulness, autonomy, and impact (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).
Leadership is proven to be an important antecedent in fostering team empowerment. This is because leaders hold the ability to create a climate of participation, whereby feelings of impact and meaningfulness will be enhanced among team members (Seibert et al., 2011). The functional role of
24 managers when leading individuals and teams is different regarding the consistency of several leadership functions that need to be attained. The overall function of team leadership is based on exhibiting a management practice that develops a shared mental model in a team, and thereby consistently monitors internal team processes (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Team empowerment is proven to be a valuable tool for the establishment of these functions regarding team leadership. As an outcome of team empowerment, teams are more likely to engage in innovative solutions and continuously seek for impactful improvements of the workforce (Pieterse, van Knippenberg, Schippers & Stam, 2010; Seibert et al., 2011). Thereby, teams hold power to achieve goals that go beyond the sum of individual’s member's efforts (Kirkman & Rosen, 2000). Because of these team level initiatives, teams are proven to work more efficiently and productively in comparison to individual employees (Mathieu et al., 2006).
The direct relation between inclusive leadership and team empowerment hasn’t been studied before. However, inclusive leadership is known for directly influencing internal dynamics of a team (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). This is because inclusive leaders hold power to establish a team climate that welcomes all contributions of team members (Randel et al., 2016). Inclusive leaders can have a direct influence on the four cognitive states that are required for the experience of team empowerment, namely potency, meaningfulness, impact, and autonomy. Inclusive leaders can enhance the degree to which employees believe that they are collectively engaging in contributing to the organization (Shore et al., 2011). For that reason, team members will experience some level of potency, because they share the belief that their team can perform a certain task skillfully (Kirkman & Rosen, 2004). Inclusive leaders are known for establishing a transparent work climate, whereby employees are aware of the strategies and operational goals of the organization (Hirak et al., 2012). A transparent management practice allows employees to identify the value and meaningfulness of their work in the organization (Seibert et al., 2011). When team members produce work that is significant or important for organizations, they feel valuable towards the company to which they are contracted. This is related to the dimension of impact (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Inclusive leaders value all employees’ input and encourage employees to shape a shared climate of perceptions (Boekhorst, 2015). Lastly, empowered teams are built on active participation and autonomy of all team members
25 (Pieterse et al., 2010; Seibert et al., 2011). Leader inclusiveness can encourage participation and autonomy in the workforce by providing access to information and resources and the ability to participate in decision-making processes (Shore et al., 2011).
The control and discretion that empowered teams can experience are similar to the characteristics of job autonomy whereby employees experience that they have the ability to make personal decisions regarding their work procedures (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Nevertheless, the freedom empowered teams may feel by the management practice of inclusive leadership in participating in decision-making processes, and task accomplishment can only be established when team members share the same cognitions (Liden et al., 2000). When granting teams with empowerment, leaders must be able to engage in a management practice that acknowledges the uniqueness of each member of a team, while establishing a sense of belongingness to the collective (Shore et al., 2011). Effective leadership is based on the balance between the recognition of particular personal contributions to the workforce and the equal participation of every employee (Chen et al., 2007). Team leaders tend to focus mostly on the collective (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Because of this employees can experience that leaders neglect their aspirations as a cause of the empowerment of the team where a certain employee is a part of (Chen et al., 2007). As a result of this occurrence, employees are proven to feel less autonomy in their work, because individuals need to share responsibilities, decision making power and have to accept inputs and perceptions from other team members (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).
In conclusion, team empowerment is a somewhat new concept within organizational research. Especially there has been little examination of the dynamic and reciprocal influences of the interaction between the individual and team level interface. However, it is stated that leaders need to engage and create a shared perception among individual team members to perform efficiently as a team (Langfred, 2005; Seibert et al., 2011). As well as for individual psychological empowerment, inclusive leaders hold the ability to empower employees by encouraging them to initiate new tasks and thereby boost followers’ sense of autonomy (Pieterse et al., 2010). Thus, inclusive leadership is known for the provision of socio-political support and providing access to valuable resources (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). These antecedents are well known for enhancing the feeling of job
26 autonomy among team members (Park, 2016; Llopis & Foss, 2015). However, granting teams more empowerment might detract leaders from empowering employees at an individual level simultaneously. Because of this, individual level outcomes of individual psychological empowerment will become lesser when employees are working in empowered teams. As a result of these statement, the present research proposes the following hypotheses:
H4a: Inclusive leadership is positively related to team empowerment. H4b: Team empowerment is negatively related to job autonomy.
3. Methods
In this section, the methodology of the research will be described. First, the research design, data sample and the instruments used will be discussed. Second, a thorough explanation of the data analysis and preliminary analysis will be presented. The last section will focus on the results of the data analysis concerning the stated hypotheses.
3.1 Research Design
The aim of this research is to investigate and expand the current literature on the concepts of leader inclusiveness, gender, job autonomy, individual psychological empowerment and team empowerment. The conceptual model in particular (figure 1) showed that the purpose of this research was to investigate whether leader inclusiveness has a linear or non-linear effect on job autonomy and if this relationship is mediated by both individual psychological empowerment and team empowerment. Thereby, the present study makes an attempt to identify the difference between a female and a male leader related to the inclusiveness of their leadership style.
To investigate these relationships a quantitative, multiple source research was set up. A questionnaire for both employees and managers was developed to examine the linearity between the given concepts. The criteria for participating in the research were related to teamwork and leadership. All respondents needed to work in close co-operation in a team where there is a clear hierarchy in the relation between a manager and employees. The workgroup had to consist of three or more employees and one manager. Thereby, the respondents needed to currently work in a paid, not voluntary, job.
27 To conduct the quantitative research two different surveys were developed. One survey consisted out of questions related to a manager of a team. The other survey was built on questions regarding concepts of employees. This was done to eliminate common source bias within the research. Former research has proven that the average response rate of a survey is around 56% (Baruch, 1999). The length of the survey is one of the main factors that can lower a response rate (Fan & Yan, 2010). To enhance this percentage, the researchers of this survey focused on the length of the questionnaire. By doing so, a great attempt has been made to try to keep the survey as short as possible for the respondents. Thereby, there has been a pilot study done to review the survey by a test panel. The feedback from this test panel was used to keep the survey adequately formatted to hold participants’ attention to make sure that a high percentage of respondents would finish the survey (Fan & Yan 2010).
The questionnaires were self-administrated and developed and distributed by the web-based tool of Qualtrics to managers and employees. The respondents that participated in this research were obtained by a group of seven Master students of the University of Amsterdam in the Master program of Business Administration, Leadership and Management track. The participants worked in a variety of functions and hierarchical levels in different organizations that are located in the Netherlands. The surveys were sent to all participants by e-mail, whereby the respondents were briefed through the procedure of the survey research. The respondents were given two weeks to fill in the questionnaire. After one week a second e-mail was sent to all respondents to be able to enlarge the sample and make the research more accurate. All questionnaires were translated into English to ensure that international respondents could fill in the survey. Qualtrics was used to collect the data of the present study.
The sampling method for this quantitative research was a convenience or accidental sampling procedure. Every respondent was asked before the distribution of the survey if he or she was benevolent to participate in the research. However, the respondents had a short timeframe in which the survey had to be completed. Because of this the respondents were asked about their availability in the particular period of the research. Besides directly managing the availability of the respondents, this method was also used to have an influence on the generalizability of the research related to the sample. By conducting a convenience sample, respondents of different organizations in different
28 operational sectors could be approached. Because of this, the respondents were working in many different divisions or industries, which made the results and predictions of this research high in external validity.
To examine the linearity between the variables of this research the results of the questionnaire of the managers and the results of the survey of the subordinates that were connected to the same team needed to be matched. This was done by their e-mail addresses and a unique number that was given to each team. The incentive for participating in the research consisted out of a report of the results and practical implications for each company.
Eventually, 77 teams filled in the survey. This was based on 77 managers and 311 subordinates. The corresponding rate of the manager's group was 97% and for the subordinates 77% respectively. However, after doing a missing data analysis, teams were reduced from the research because of their consistence out of less than three team members or missing data from the manager. The final sample consisted out of 61 team managers and 273 subordinates. 36,1% of the managers were female, 52,3% male and 1,6% filled in not to related with one of the presented gender types. The last 10% of the respondents did not provide an answer to the question. The subordinates samples consisted out of 35,8% female, 49,1% male and 0,9% filled in not to be female nor male. 14,2% of the respondents didn’t fill in their gender for the current research. Regarding the education level of the managers, 3,8% filled in that their highest educational level was primary or high school, 9,3% said to have an educational level in vocational education, 36,1% finished a University of Professional Education, and 50,8% pursued a University degree (Bachelors or Masters). None of the employees only had a primary school education only. 6,2% finished High School, 19% obtained a Vocational Educational level of education, 20,1% finished an education at a University of Professional Education, and 39,9% have a University degree as highest education. The tenure of the managers of the teams in the organization they currently worked for varied from one to 38 years. Employees have worked in the organization from 0.5 to 48 years.
29 3.2. Measures
The questionnaires used for this research consisted out of several questions that are not used for the present study. This is because six other students participated in the quantitative research and recruitment of respondents. The questions that are used to examine the relationships between the variables as shown in the conceptual model can be found in Appendix C. All questions were answered with a seven-point Likert scale and rated from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.' The questions were asked in a way to which employee responded to statements about behavioral patterns and personal perceptions of their managers or leaders. Thereby, there were some issues presented to the respondents based on their evaluations of their participation at work, the team they operate in and the organizational structure of their workforce. The questions were obtained from previous academic research, to assure the level of reliability. However, for each measurement scale was a reliability analysis done before the items were statistically analyzed.
Gender of the manager was measured by providing the recruited team leaders in their questionnaire the option to fill in their sex in three ways; 'female,' 'male' or 'none of the above.' It is important to note that gender of the manager will not be used as a control variable for this research, but as an independent variable to measure the extent of the difference in the inclusiveness of either a male or a female leader.
Inclusive Leadership was measured with a 12-item scale adopted from the measures of Carmeli et al. (2010). This measurement scale combines all elements of inclusive leadership, such as openness, availability, accessibility, and empowerment. An example of an item that was used in this measurement scale is: “The manager is available for professional questions I would like to consult with him/her.” Research of Carmeli et al. (2010) has proven that the scale holds a high score on reliability (α=.94). This is the same for the current research; the Cronbach’s Alpha was .93.
The dependent variable ‘job autonomy’ is measured by a nine-item scale developed by Breaugh (1999). An example of an item of this measurement scale is: “I am free to choose the methods to use in carrying out my work.” Former research has indicated that the measurement scale used for the current research holds a high Cronbach’s Alpha of .92 (Saragih, 2015). The reliability
30 analysis in the current research indicated a high reliability of the measurement scale of job autonomy (α=.87).
The first mediating variable ‘individual psychological empowerment’ is measured by a scale of Spreitzer (1995). The measurement scale for individual psychological empowerment is built on four subscales; meaning, competence, impact, and self-determination. This scale consisted out of 12 items. Research of Spreitzer (1995) has validated the multidimensional measure of individual psychological empowerment. Second-order factor analyses have proven that the four dimensions can all contribute to an overall dimension of individual psychological empowerment. Former research has proved a high level of reliability of the combined construct of the four dimensions of empowerment, α=.84 (Avolio et al., 2004). The Cronbach’s Alpha for this scale in the current analysis shows indeed a high reliability, α=.87.
The measurement scale of the mediating variable ‘team empowerment’ is developed by Kirkman et al. (2004), but is extracted from previous research of Kirkman and Rosen (1999). In prior research, a 26-item scale of team empowerment was used that consisted out of four dimensions of team empowerment; potency, meaningfulness, autonomy, and impact. The research of Kirkman et al. (2004) developed a scale that is derived from this scale. They picked out of every dimension three items that measured one of the four constructs. By doing so, a 12 item scale was developed. This scale has proved to have a high reliability of α=.93 (Kirkman et al., 2004). Simultaneously, in the current research, the Cronbach’s Alpha showed a high level of reliability, α=.87.
For this research, two control variables are used to rule out alternative explanations for the results of the analysis. Thereby, control variables reduce bias within the results and have the purpose to increase statistical power (Becker, 2005). The variables ‘tenure in the current organization’ and ‘education’ are used as a control variable. The control of resource theory of Hobfoll (2002) states that these concepts can increase perceived job autonomy and decrease the motivational aspect of empowerment. This is because highly educated employees, as well as employees who are working longer for an organization, may expect and feel entitled to more discretion in their work (Gómez & Rosen, 2001; Kuvaas et al., 2016). Thereby, previous research has stated that tenure in an organization and individual psychological empowerment have a positive relationship (Koberg, Boss,
31 Senjem & Goodmann, 1999). Tenure has a positive relation with individual psychological empowerment because employees learn from experience by the reminiscences of previous events whereby they experienced a feeling of empowerment through leadership, goal attainment or other forms of organizational performance (Ergenli et al., 2007). It is worth to notice that the gender of the subordinate has proved to not account for distorted results regarding the measurements scales of empowerment (Boudrias, Gadreay & Laschinger, 2004).
3.3 Data Analysis
The data for this research was obtained through the results of the two different questionnaires for both managers and employees. The results of the surveys were analyzed by IBM’s Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 24. By analyzing the data set on missing data, 18 teams in total were removed from the analysis, because these teams contained missing values or missed the criteria of having a manager and a team consisting out of three or more employees.
All scales that were used in this analysis hold a Cronbach’s Alpha above .80. Research has stated that a Cronbach’s Alpha must have a score between .70 and .80 to have sufficient reliability (Field, 2009). In none of the measurement scales was a reversibly phrased item. This means that there was no necessity to recode an item to make sure that there would be no response bias in the research. The reliability analysis confirmed this statement since none of the items of all measurement scales had negative covariances.
Subsequently, all items of each measurement scale were computed by calculating the mean of all items related to a particular measurement score. By doing so, four new items were developed, namely leader inclusiveness, job autonomy, individual psychological empowerment, and team empowerment. After this, all variables were controlled for homoscedasticity, linearity, and normality. Looking at the results of these analyses, all items were approximately normally distributed. The outliers that were shown as results of the analysis were not removed from the dataset because they referred to the inherent variability of the data. This can be related to the Central Limit Theorem that states that a big sample has more chance to be normally distributed. The sample of this research is large (N=273), and for this reason a normal distribution can be predicted (Field, 2009).
32 After this, correlation and regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses. Correlation analyses were made to quantify the intensity of the relationship between all measurement scales used for the current research (Field, 2009). Second, a linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the direct relationship of the variable ‘gender’ on the independent variable ‘leader inclusiveness.' After these analyses, the PROCESS method was used to examine the mediation model used in this research. The PROCESS method was used to estimate the effect of multiple mediators on the relationship between the independent and the dependent variable (“PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS,” n.d.). In all examinations, the control variables ‘tenure in the current organization’ and ‘education’ were taken into account while conducting the analyses.
4. Results
The results section will consist out of a section that describes the results of the descriptive statistics obtained by the bivariate correlation analyses. After, the results of the linear regression analysis and the PROCESS analyses will be presented. First the mediating effect of ‘individual psychological empowerment’ on the relationship between ‘leader inclusiveness’ and ‘job autonomy’ will be discussed. Second, the results be of the mediating effect of ‘team empowerment’ on the relationship between ‘leader inclusiveness’ and ‘job autonomy’ will be presented.
4.1 Descriptive statistics
In Table 4.1 means, standard deviations and the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of all incorporated variables in the current research are presented. As stated in the table, most correlations are lower than .8. This means that all variables can be included in the multiple regression analyses to test the hypotheses further. Only ‘gender’ has a higher correlation with ‘inclusive leadership’ (r = -.82). Besides this finding ‘gender’ and ‘inclusive leadership’ are not significantly correlated with each other, p > .001.
Table 4.1 shows that in the sample employees estimate the inclusiveness of their leader on a high level (M = 5.64, SD = .47). Thereby, the respondents of this survey state that job autonomy is measured with a high mean (M = 5.02, SD = 1.02). The perception of individual psychological
33 empowerment and team empowerment is also highly rated by the subordinates. Individual psychological empowerment holds a mean of M = 5.3, SD = .80, and the average score of team empowerment is M = 5.69, SD = .82
As shown in Table 4.1, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient provides support for the relation between ‘inclusive leadership’ and ‘job autonomy,' r =.36, p < .001. Thereby, ‘inclusive leadership’ is also significantly related to ‘individual psychological empowerment’ (r = .38, p < .001) and ‘team empowerment’ (r = .44, p < .001). The relations between the dependent variable ‘job autonomy’ and the mediating variables ‘individual psychological empowerment’ and ‘team empowerment’ are both significant and show a high correlation, respectively r = .62, p < .001 and r = .5, p < .001. Last, both mediating variables, ‘individual empowerment’ and ‘team empowerment’ are significantly related, r = .57, p < .001. These results provide support for hypotheses three, four and five. However, there was no significant correlation found between the gender of a manager and inclusive leadership (r = -.82).
Because of the high significant correlations of the variables job autonomy, individual psychological empowerment, and team empowerment, a multicollinearity test was conducted. Multicollinearity is a statistical concept that indicates a strong correlation between predictors in a multiple regression analysis. When correlations seem to be high between two or more variables it may be complex to argue about the individual importance of each variable (Field, 2009). The variables job autonomy, individual psychological empowerment, and team empowerment were checked on multicollinearity by a linear regression analysis on Variance Inflation Factors (VIF). However, all scores of VIF were below five, which indicates that there should be no concern for collinearity between the three variables.
Although running a correlation analysis proves the significance of almost all correlations, no control variable is taken into account within this step of the quantitative research. In order to identify spurious relations underlying the predictability of the significant result, a multiple regression analysis will be conducted with the independent variables ‘gender manager’ and ‘leader inclusiveness’, the dependent variable ‘job autonomy’, the mediating variables ‘individual psychological empowerment’ and ‘team empowerment’, and the control variables ‘tenure at the current organization’ and ‘education’.
