The effect of leader inclusiveness on employees’
tendencies to improve the organization:
The direct and moderating effects of leader inclusiveness on OCBO
Menno van Gameren 10742417
26-06-18
Supervisor: R. van Geffen MSc
Topic: Inclusive leadership in a Vignette study Words: 9851
2 Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Menno van Gameren who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document are 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
Employees helping to improve the organization they work for are of great importance for a company and their managers. However, managers do not always know how to behave for employees to help them improve the organization. In order to see when employees show tendencies to improve the organization, the effects of leader inclusiveness are investigated. It is assumed in this research that leader inclusiveness influences organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization and a moderating effect on antecedents, affective organizational commitment and psychological safety. More specifically, this is assumed because an inclusive leader can create a positive image of the organization that will motivate the employees and because an inclusive leader is more open to employee initiatives than a leader that is not inclusive. These hypotheses were tested by doing a statistical analysis on data collected on 131 respondents. The distributed survey consists of several measures and a vignette on leader inclusiveness. Only a main effect of psychological safety was found, no other significant effect was found in the main analysis. Additional analysis showed interesting effects of several variables on civic virtue. It can be concluded from this research that psychological safety is an important way for managers to increase the tendencies of employees to improve the organization.
4 Table of contents Introduction p. 5 Theoretical framework p. 8 Methods p. 16 Results p. 21 Discussion p. 32 Conclusion p. 38 References p. 39 Appendix p. 43
5 Introduction
How to lead people is a question asked, from ancient Rome to the CEO’s of today’s multinationals. Although the purpose of leadership might have changed from conquering land to conquering markets, leaders struggle with how to lead their subordinates, make them improve the organization, and reach organizational goals daily. Over the past couple of years, different styles of leadership have been developed, with different kinds of applications, ranging from servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977) to transformational leadership (Bass, 1990). Now a new type of leadership is being developed, it was first defined by Nembhard and Edmondson (2006); inclusive leadership. In this new form of leadership a leader invites all his/her subordinates to actively participate and appreciates their contributions (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). In a day to day situation an inclusive leader will not only tend to listen more and better to the valuable input of his/her employees and will act on the new information and ideas collected. An inclusive leader will also stimulate input by asking for and accepting everyone’s input. When implemented in the right way, a subordinate of an inclusive leader will tend to improve his/her work environment, together with his/her manager.
Following academic literature, one could argue that inclusive leadership is all about diversity and inclusion (Randel, et al., 2018; Shore, et al., 2011), however, in the business environment it goes beyond accepting one another for who they are and considering their differences. From the academic literature it becomes clear that inclusive leadership is all about being open, accessible and available to subordinates (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010; Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012). In order to be a successful leader, boundaries to speak up should be taken away. Hopefully this will result in certain behaviour by the leaders’ subordinates which will improve the organization as a whole.
In this study, research will be done based on the question if inclusive leadership will help managers to improve their organizations. Currently no definite answers are formulated on the questions if, and to what extent inclusive leadership will influence the behaviour of his/her subordinates. By increasing the motivation of employees and being more open to the ideas of his/her subordinates an inclusive leader might moderate the effects of commitment and psychological safety.
6 This paper will contribute to the current body of scientific knowledge on inclusive leadership and whether it has a main effect, or a moderation effect on the effects of affective organizational commitment or/and psychological safety, and if it will or will not increase employees’ efforts to improve the organization. This gap in research is identified by other authors such as Lemmon and Wayne (2015). They state that ‘’future research that may be fruitful is the examination of moderators
of the relationship between motivation for helping behaviour and OCB’’ (p. 143). Therefore, this gap
will be the main focus of study in this research.
An important driver for this research is that the inclusive leadership style showed that it has important implications for leaders, for instance in the research of Nembhard and Edmondson (2006), it is shown that the leader and a psychological safe environment have a big effect on the voice behaviour of his/her subordinates. This research will help the practitioners of this management style to oversee the results and the effects it has on companies. In this research a special focus will be on organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization because the objective of this research is to understand if the process of improving the business, a process every manager works on, can be stimulated and appreciated more. For example, Yen, Li and Niehoff (2008) in their research show that organizational citizenship behaviour leads to better project management in the implementation of information systems. Although this is a conclusion not applicable to all businesses, it shows how important organizational citizenship behaviour can be in the routine practices of a manager.
This paper intents to help practitioners to shed new light on the possible applications for the inclusive leadership style, on top of all that is already spread in the business environment. Although research has been done on the application on inclusive leadership (Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006), further research is needed to become aware of the possible effects of this leadership style. In order to research the effects of inclusive leadership a vignette study will be used. A vignette on inclusive leadership will let participants in this study get a better grasp of what effects an inclusive or not inclusive leader has. Therefore, it will give results that are more related to what effects an inclusive leader really has, becoming more useful for managers.
7 This research may be used to show managers how to get their employees more involved in the improvement efforts made in every organization. Getting employees more involved will result in more effective solutions for the problems seen in every organization (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997).
To achieve all goals mentioned in this introduction research will be done on the following research question: ‘’To what extent does inclusive leadership influence organizational citizenship
behaviour aimed at the organization and the effects of affective organizational commitment and psychological safety on organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization?’’.
8 Theoretical framework
Organizational commitment
In literature, organizational commitment is defined as the degree to which an individual identifies him or her-self and feels involved with the organization he/she works for (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). A committed employee to the organization he/she works for, feels that the values projected by the organization are the same values he/she has. This employee will, therefore, pursue the same goals as the organization and it will make the job of the manager to steer his/her subordinates into the right direction easier. For example Nguni, Sleegers and Denessen (2007) found that committed Tanzanian teachers felt more pride when associated to the school they teach at. This shows that committed employees feel better about their organization when they share values and the organizational goal can become a goal of the individual employee.
In the literature, three subgroups of commitment are defined; affective, continuance and normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment is defined by Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch and Topolnytsky (2002) as: ‘’an emotional attachment to, identification with, and
involvement in the organization’’(p. 21). The continuance subgroup of organizational commitment is
related to the cost an employee perceives in case it would leave the organization (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). The last subgroup, normative commitment, relates to the employees’ norms on the obligation of being loyal to an organization (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). An employee that is affectively committed will have values that better match with those of the organization than for the other types of commitment defined. This relationship is mostly important for managers to enable his/her subordinates in a way that they will try to improve the organization. Affective commitment relates more to the persons attitude towards the organization than his/her attitude towards changing jobs than the other subgroups of commitment, thus, affective commitment will be the commitment studied in this research.
9
Organizational citizenship behaviour
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is defined as behaviour of an employee that is not expected from the employee by his/her job description or his/her contract, but fulfilled in order to increase effectivity of the firm or help out other employees (Bies, 1989). Organizational citizenship behaviour can be aimed at two different parts of the organization, at the individual employee (OCBI) or at improving the organization (OCBO) (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). One example of OCBI is an employee helping a new employee get around the office in his/her first day, while it is not the employees’ job to do so. OCB can also be aimed at improving the organization (OCBO) (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) An example for this is an employee who starts a brainstorm about mental health improvements in the company after seeing that several co-workers show signs of excessive stress. As can be seen from the examples above, this kind of behaviour has a positive effect on the organization and should be encouraged by managers in order to excel in for instance the improvement of the organization by employees.
The construct of organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization is build up out of three employee characteristics; conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue (Lemmon & Wayne, 2015). In psychological literature conscientiousness is defined by Barrick and Mount (1991) as being careful, thorough, responsible, organized, planful, hardworking, achievement-oriented, and persevering. In the context of citizenship behaviour, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) define conscientiousness as: ‘’Discretionary behaviours on the part of the employee that go well
beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization, in the areas of attendance, obeying rules and regulations, taking breaks, and so forth.’’ (p. 115). The definition of this variable closely links to
the extra-role behaviour described as a definition of OCB. Sportsmanship is defined by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) as: ‘’Willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal
circumstances without complaining’’ (p. 115). Sportsmanship relates to the motivational part of OCB
and therefore is a useful subscale of OCB. Lastly, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) define civic virtue as: ‘’Behaviour on the part of an individual that indicates that he/she responsibly
10
participates in, is involved in, or is concerned about the life of the company’’ (p. 115). Civic virtue closely
relates to the involvement and ownership of the employee which is an important part of OCB. In literature it was found that affective commitment is an antecedent of organizational citizenship behaviour (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002), the dependent variable in this research. If literature about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) is read, it can be concluded why organizational commitment has its effects on OCB (Chahal & Metha, 2010). An intrinsic motivated employee does a job because he/she thinks that the job in itself is interesting or enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Because citizenship behaviour is not rewarded or enforced by means of compensation, or by a supervisor, an employee who is committed to the organization will be more eager to show this behaviour, due to his/her intrinsic motivation to help out co-workers or to improve the organization. Not only will this employee, be more motivated to show citizenship behaviour, but he/she will feel fulfilment after helping others in an organization the employee values. In order to see if this relationship is also found in the sample used in this study, H1 will be examined.
H1: Organizational commitment is positively related to an employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization, such that an increase in organizational commitment will increase OCBO.
Psychological safety
Psychological safety is defined by literature as the extent to which an individual can show him or herself without fearing any negative consequences on the persons’ self-image, status or career (Kahn, 1990). Part of the research conducted on psychological safety is done in the context of learning and improving the workplace (Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009; Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). According to the literature, psychological safety gives employees space and confidence to raise their voice and try to improve the organization they are working for without fearing any retaliation (Detert & Burris, 2007).
11 Because OCB is not reinforced by any contract or expected by the supervisor, the extent to which the employee shows OCB depends on the initiative taken by the individual employee. When an employee fears retaliation of some kind for initiatives taken to improve the organization, the employee will tend to not show this behaviour because of this fear for retaliation (Dutton, Ashford, ONeill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997). Taking away the fear of retaliation can improve initiative by employees, and therefore is of great importance to managers. This effect is not only observed in a quantitative setting, but also in qualitative ones. After conducting 40 employee interviews, Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin (2003) found that the reason most often mentioned for an employee to not speak up to his/her manager was fear of negative consequences. It is assumed that an employee who feels safe at work will show more initiative and more organizational citizenship behaviour than an employee who does not feel psychologically save. A psychological safe employee will do this because he/she will feel less at risk than others when showing citizenship behaviour. Although a manager may not agree with the extra jobs done by the employee, the employee will not fear retaliation for what is done in order to improve the work environment. To verify this effect H2 is hypothesised.
H2: Psychological safety is positively related to an employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization, such that an increase in psychological safety will increase OCBO.
Leader inclusiveness
The term leader inclusiveness was defined by Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) as ‘‘words and deeds
by a leader or leaders that indicate an invitation and appreciation for others’ contributions’’ (p. 947).
In this perspective an inclusive leader will show openness, accessibility and availability to all his/her subordinates (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010; Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012). Research shows that a certain leadership style has effects on the behaviour of the employee, for instance on creativity (Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007). The combination of the effects of leader inclusiveness shows that the style of leadership has an impact on the employees, thereby it is
12 interesting to see if there are any other effects of inclusive leadership, especially considering the improvement of the organization by his/her employees.
Although a correlation between leader inclusiveness and an employee’s organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization was not found yet, research is done on the effects that leaders and their behaviour have on employees speaking up (Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, & Roth, 1992; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012) and on their engagement (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Tangirala and Ramanujam (2012) show in their article that an employee tends to speak up more when a supervisor consults his/her employees more often. Saunders, Sheppard, Knight and Roth (1992) have developed a model on how to increase the likelihood of employee voice. This model shows that there are two antecedents of employee voice; responsiveness and approachability. Saks and Gruman (2014) developed a model which showed that the behaviours of a leader has an effect on employee engagement. Via job resources and demands, and psychological conditions, the way a leader treats his/her subordinates affects their engagement on different levels, for example task, work, team and organizational engagement. As stated before, OCB is not reinforced by a contract or expected by the supervisor, therefore it is completely dependent on employee initiative. Research on employee behaviour in relation to the behaviour of the superior assumes that inclusive leadership, which is characterized by accessibility and availability to his/her subordinates, will have an effect on the initiative and motivation that drives the leaders subordinates to show organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization (Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012). In order to study if this correlation actually exists H3 will be tested.
H3: Leader inclusiveness is positively related to an employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization, such that an increase in leader inclusiveness will increase OCBO.
13
Moderating effect of leader inclusiveness
As stated before the ways leaders behave have a direct effect on the leaders subordinates (Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, & Roth, 1992; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). The last two hypotheses in this theoretical framework will not hypothesize the direct effects of leader inclusiveness, but the moderating effects of leader inclusiveness, on the effects of different antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization, as stated in H1 and H2.
The first moderating effect that will be hypothesised is the effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect of affective organizational commitment on OCBO. It is hypothesised that leader inclusiveness will increase the positive effect of organizational commitment on employee’s organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization. A leader is not only a direct supervisor who evaluates the performance of the employee or only motivates his/her subordinates, a supervisor also creates and becomes an image of the company the employee works for. When this image is more positive, the more motivated the subordinate is to show behaviour like organizational citizenship behaviour, which will create positive outcomes for management and the organization as a whole.
An inclusive leader will not only be an image of the organization, but as stated before an inclusive leader will also stimulate employees to speak up more (Saunders, Sheppard, Knight, & Roth, 1992; Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2012). An already committed employee that shows organizational citizenship behaviour will be stimulated by an inclusive leader to show this behaviour to an even greater extent. Therefore, inclusive leadership moderates the effect of organizational commitment on OCBO in such a way that an already more committed employee will show more OCBO. To study whether this assumed effect actually exists, H4 will be tested.
H4: Leader inclusiveness moderates the effect of organizational commitment on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization, such that the effect of organizational commitment on OCBO will be stronger when leader inclusiveness is high rather than low.
14 The last hypothesis in this theoretical framework, is about the moderating effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect of psychological safety on OCBO. It is assumed that an inclusive leader will increase the effects of psychological safety on OCBO for several reasons. In the first place, an inclusive leader is per definition more open to initiatives taken by employees like, citizenship behaviours (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Thus an employee may feel more appreciated, especially in a psychological safe environment, to show initiative. Not only is an inclusive leader more open to citizenships behaviours, he/she might also reward them more than others or even notice them while others will not notice. OCB, as stated before is behaviour that is not rewarded nor expected by the supervisor, however the behaviour might be showing a supervisor extra effort made by the employee. By taking initiatives, employees signal their extra effort in order to reduce information asymmetry between the employee and his/her supervisor (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011; Stiglitz, 2002). An inclusive leader, who shows openness, will therefore receive signals from his/her employees on who shows extra effort, or who is ready for a promotion. Once an employee is aware of this openness he/she will probably show more citizenship behaviour because the employee knows his/her supervisor appreciates the shown behaviour.
Inclusive leadership will not only appreciate OCBO more, it will also stimulate subordinates to show it more often. According to the model of organizational trust developed by Schoorman, Mayer and Davis (2007), trust is what drives risk taking in the relationship between an employee and his/her supervisor. An inclusive leader will therefore increase the effect of psychological safety on OCBO and will give employees an opportunity to improve the organization. In order to study the moderating effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect of psychological safety on OCBO the effect is hypothesised in H5.
H5: Leader inclusiveness moderates the effect of psychological safety on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization, such that the effect of psychological safety on OCBO will be stronger when leader inclusiveness is high rather than low.
15 The different variables and hypotheses that are stated in this theoretical framework are visualized in the following conceptual model (figure 1).
Figure 1: Conceptual model Affective organizational commitment OCBO Leader inclusiveness Psychological safety H1 H2 H3 H4 H5
16 Methods
Design and sample
In this cross-sectional study data was collected by the means of an online survey in Dutch. In total the survey was sent to more than 200 participants, all Dutch-speaking. After two weeks of data collection 186 participants finished the survey of which 131 participants were eligible for participation because only they gave consent and answered all the essential questions in the survey. In this final sample (N=131), 54% identified themselves as women, 45% as men and 1% identifies differently. The most common level of education in the finale sample was University (45%) followed by University of applied sciences (33%). In the final sample the most common age group was 51-60 years of age (33%) followed by 20-30 years of age (23%). Tenure varied among the different participants of the survey. Tenure ranged from less than a year to 40 years (M=10.78, SD=10.73). Participants in this research worked in a variety of sectors, such as, consultancy, education and the medical sector. In order to reduce translation mistakes by the participants who were anticipated to be Dutch, all questions in the survey were translated. The questions were translated in a team of three undergraduate students and a supervisor. Next to the translation, all scales were changed in order to make it possible for participants to rate themselves on these scales. All questions are included in appendix 1.
Measurements
Independent variable affective organizational commitment
In order to measure the independent variable affective organizational commitment an 8-item scale was taken from Allen & Meyer (1990). An example item is: ‘’I would be very happy to spend the rest of
my career with this organization’’. Answers were given by the respondents on a 7-point Likert scale,
running from (1) completely disagree, until (7) completely agree. The higher the score on this particular measure, the higher the feeling of affective organizational commitment. Out of the eight items on this scale three were reversed coded in the current survey, this is one less than in the original scale because
17 one of the reverse coded items was translated in Dutch in a correct coded way in order for the Dutch question to be understandable. The reliability of the scale was .710.
Independent variable psychological safety
Edmonson (1999) developed a 7-item scale to measure psychological safety. An example item is:
’’Working with members of this team, my unique skills and talents are valued and utilized’’. The 7-point
Likert scale for these items run from (1) very inaccurate to (7) very accurate. The higher the score on scale, the more psychological safe the employee feels. All items were changed to measure the feeling of psychological safety in a company instead of psychological safety in a team, which was measured in the original scaled by Edmonson (1999). Three of the items in this scale were reverse coded. The reliability of the used scale was .727.
Dependent variable OCBO
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) developed a 24-item scale to measure organizational citizenship behaviour. Fourteen items out of twenty-four are part of the measure defined by Lemmon and Wayne (2015), which measure organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization. This measure, measures three different constructs, namely: conscientiousness (five items) , sportsmanship (five items, all reverse coded) and civic virtue (four items). Example items are:
‘’Attendance at work is above the norm’’, ‘’ Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters (reverse coded)’’ and ‘’Attends meetings that are not mandatory, but are considered important’’. From
the five measures of conscientiousness only three were used in the current study. The first measure that was discarded was done so because it was a question for the manager of the employee that could not be changed into a self-rate question. The second question that was not included was regarding an employee’s presence at work. As can be seen the original question dates back from 1990 in which flex working and working from a home office was not accepted as it is in the current day. Therefore, it is assumed that the question is no longer relevant in the current period of time. All answers are given on
18 a 7-point Likert scale that runs from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The higher the score on the scale the more organizational citizenship behaviour is showed. The items in this measure are changed in order to make self-rating possible. Out of the total of fourteen items five items in this measure are reverse coded, all these items measure sportsmanship. The reliability estimate of this measure was .806.
Moderator leader inclusiveness
Leader inclusiveness, the moderator in this study, will be measured by the means of an experimental vignette study (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). Two different scenarios were developed in order to distinct between a more and a less inclusive leader. The participants in the survey got randomly assigned to one of the versions of the vignette. Both scenarios are added in the survey in appendix 1. In order to check whenever the assumed difference in leader inclusiveness was observed by the respondents a 9-item scale, developed by Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon and Ziv (2010) was used. Of these 9-items three were created to measure openness, three to measure availability and three to measure accessibility. Example items are: ‘’The manager is open to discuss the desired goals and new ways to achieve them
(openness)’’, ‘’ The manager is available for professional questions I would like to consult with him/her (availability)’’, ‘’ The manager is accessible for discussing emerging problems (accessibility)’’. All
answers on these items are given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) disagree to (5) agree. The higher the score on the scale the more inclusive a leader is perceived to be. None of the items used in this measure are reversed coded. The reliability of this scale was .959.
Control variables
The participants in this study answered several questions used to control for some unexpected relations. Age, gender, educational level and tenure were measured. These measures are used to control for, because they can influence the relationships studied in this research. Differences in age, gender and educational level could cause differences in perceptions on the inclusiveness of a manager.
19 Tenure could influence the variable of commitment, although it is measured on an affective subscale there is a probability that this will affect the relationship of the different variables. Age was measured by using an ordinal scale. Possible answers on this scale were: <20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60 and >60. Gender was coded in such a way that 1 = female, 2 = male, 3 = other. Educational level was measured using ordinal scale ranging from no/elementary education to university. Tenure was given by the respondents in years.
Procedure
The data collected for this study, was collected by three Dutch undergraduate students from the University of Amsterdam. The different participants were asked to fill-out a survey by personal message or email. In these messages or emails an anonymous link to the survey was included. When starting the survey participants were randomly distributed over the two different versions of the vignette. The data collection was done in a two-week time-period. More measures than the ones described above were part of the survey, because the complete survey was part of a bigger study1.
Analyses
To test the different hypotheses stated in the theoretical framework, the collected data was analysed using IBM SPSS. In order to test the H1, the correlation between affective organizational commitment and OCBO, a regression analysis was done. In this analysis affective organizational commitment was used as independent variable while OCBO was used as a dependent variable.
H2 was tested using a similar approach. In this case psychological safety was used as an independent variable while OCBO was used as a dependent variable. By this approach the correlation between psychological safety and OCBO was studied.
20 H3 was tested using a regression analyses as well. Just as in H1 and H2 OCBO was used as a dependent variable. To study the correlation between leader inclusiveness and OCBO, leader inclusiveness was used as an independent variable in this analysis.
Hypothesis 4, the moderation effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect of affective organizational commitment on OCBO, was tested by using a hierarchical regression. In the first model of this regression only the main effect was tested. Accordingly, the moderation variable was added to complete the next model.
The last hypothesis that was tested is H5. This hypothesis was tested by using a hierarchical regression. In the first model of this regression the main effect between psychological safety and OCBO was added. In the second model the moderation variable was added. By the means of this regression H5 was tested.
21 Results
Reliabilities and Correlations
In table 1 the means, standard deviations and reliabilities of the used variables and control variables in this study are presented. Affective organizational commitment (α = .710), psychological safety (α = .727) and OCBO (α = .806) had an acceptable reliability. Leader inclusiveness (α = .959), however, had a reliability that is higher than necessary (Steiner, 2003). Although the reliability found in this research is higher than in the original research by Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon and Ziv (2010), in which the measure has a Cronbach’s alpha of .94, the measure is not changed because the reliability was not affected enough by single removals to change the original scale by Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon and Ziv (2010).
Table 1 also includes correlations between main variables, it can be seen that affective organizational commitment expectedly correlated psychological safety r = .263, p = .002 and with OCBO r = .234, p = .007. Unexpectedly, affective organizational commitment did not correlate with inclusive leadership r = .128, p = .144. As expected, psychological safety correlated with OCBO r = .319,
p < .001 and with inclusive leadership r = .218, p = .012. As expected, inclusive leadership and OCBO
correlated with each other r = .341, p < .001. Table 1 also includes correlations of the control variables used in this study. Some control variables correlated unexpectedly. For example gender and educational level r = .202, p = .021 and age and educational level r = -.276, p = .001. A more logical correlation was found between age and tenure r = .582, p < 0.001.
22
Table 1: Descriptives and correlations between variables (Cronbach's Alphas on diagonal)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Agea 3.939 - - 2. Genderb 1.466 - -.047 - 3. Educational levelc 4.176 - -.276** .202* - 4. Tenure 10.781 10.730 .582** -.008 -.313** -
5. Affective organizational commitment 4.290 0.842 .138 .114 -.019 .151 (.710)
6. Psychological safety 5.058 0.774 -.155 .067 .068 -.012 .263** (.727) 7. OCBO 5.074 0.624 .026 -.157 -.056 .042 .234** .319** (.806) 8. Leader inclusiveness 3.083 1.001 -.109 -.099 -.152 .027 .128 .218* .341** (.959) Note. N=131, * p<.05, **p<.01 a1 = <20, 2 = 20-30, 3 = 31-40, 4 = 41-50, 5 = 51-60, 6 = >60 b1 = female, 2 = male, 3 = other
23
Regression analyses
In order to investigate the formulated hypotheses regression analyses were conducted. To test the hypothesized effects, a hierarchical regression was executed. In this regression, the control variables were entered first. In the second model the main variables were added as well. In this case the vignette is added and not the leader inclusiveness variable, to see if the difference in leader inclusiveness showed by the different versions of the vignette had an effect on the other variables. In the last model presented, mean-centered interaction variables were added. Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical regression that was performed.
Control variables
In the first model created, only a regression was done with the outcome variable OCBO and the control variables. None of the control variables had a significant main effect on the outcome variable. The control variables tested were age (β = -.009, t = -.087, p = .931), gender (β = -.154, t = -1.712, p = .089), educational lever (β = -.015, t = -.156, p = .876) and tenure (β = .042, t = .378, p = .706).
Main effects
In the second model the main variables were added. In order to test H1, the variable affective organizational commitment was looked at. H1 was not supported by the results of the second regression model. The results from the analysis show the following statistics; β = .169, t = 1.950, p = .053. The statistics show that there was no significant main effect between affective organizational commitment and the dependent variable OCBO.
The second main variable added, was psychological safety. H2 stated that there was a positive relation between psychological safety and OCBO. This hypothesis was supported by the results of the hierarchical regression (β = .283, t = 3.259, p = .001).
24
Table 2: Regression Results of main (Model 2) and interaction effects (Model 3) of the leader inclusiveness vignette
OCBO (DV) Model!1 Model!2 Model 3
Coefficient SE Beta Coefficient SE Beta Coefficient SE Beta
Constant 5.381** 0.366 3.599** 0.507 3.643** 0.634
Age -0.004 0.050 -0.009 0.024 0.047 0.053 0.024 0.048 0.052
Gender -0.186 0.109 -0.154 -0.226* 0.102 -0.187 -0.228* 0.102 -0.188
Educational level -0.010 -0.066 -0.015 -0.010 0.061 -0.014 -0.019 0.062 -0.027
Tenure 0.002 0.006 0.042 -0.002 0.006 -0.029 -0.002 0.006 -0.039
Affective organizational commitment 0.125 0.064 0.169 0.173 0.090 0.234
Psychological safety 0.228** 0.070 0.283 0.189 0.095 0.234
Vignette (inclusive leadership) 0.164 0.103 0.132 0.162 0.104 0.130
Affective organizational commitment * Vignette -0.095 0.128 -0.090
Psychological safety * Vignette 0.087 0.141 0.072
R2 0.026 0.183 0.188
25 The last hypothesis regarding a main effect is H3. H3 stated that there is a positive relation between leader inclusiveness and OCBO, however, the statistics gathered from the hierarchical regression does not show any significant relationship between leader inclusiveness measured by vignette version and OCBO (β = .132, t = 1.586, p = .115). So, hypothesis three was not supported by the analysed data.
An unexpected result derives from model 2 as gender has a significant negative relationship to the outcome variable OCBO (β = -.187, t = -2.222, p = .028). None of the other control variables had a significant relationship in model 2.
Moderation effects
In the third and last model of the hierarchical regression, interaction variables were added to the model. The moderation effect of the interaction term of affective organizational commitment and leader inclusiveness was insignificant β = -.090, t = -0.747, p = .456. This, unfortunately does not support hypothesis four, which states that there is a moderation effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect of affective organizational commitment on OCBO, such that the effect of affective organizational commitment on OCBO will be stronger when leader inclusiveness is high rather than low.
The last hypothesis that should be tested is H5. H5 stated that there is a moderation effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect of psychological safety on OCBO, such that the effect of psychological safety on OCBO will be stronger when leader inclusiveness is higher rather than low. The moderation effect measured by the interaction variable turned out to be insignificant β = .072, t = 0.617, p = .538. This, however means that H5 was not supported by the data. All the effects that have been analysed in this section are visualized in figure 2.
When comparing the different models on their ability to explain the variance, it can be seen that model 3 (R2 = .188) explains the variance better than model 1 (R2 = .026) and model 2 (R2 = .183).
However, model 3 did not explain the variance in the data significantly better than model 2 (p = .689). Model 2 did explain the variance in the data significantly better than model 1 did (p < .01).
26 Another observation in the final model is that the relationship between psychological safety and OCBO is no longer significant when the different interaction variables are added (β = .234, t = 1.978, p = .050). In contrary to the relationship between psychological safety and OCBO, the relationship between gender and OCBO is still significant, even after the interaction variables are added (β = -.188, t = -2.223, p = .028).
Figure 2: Conceptual model including effect size * p<.05, **p<.01
Additional analyses
When the moderation effect measured by the hierarchical regression turned out to be insignificant some further analyses was done. One analysis was done on a subscale of OCBO. The subscale in this case is civic virtue. As stated before Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) define civic virtue as: ‘’Behaviour on the part of an individual that indicates that he/she responsibly participates in,
is involved in, or is concerned about the life of the company’’ (p. 115). This specific subscale was chosen
because it defines what OCBO is about: trying to improve the company, which can only be done by participating and being concerned with the organization. This relates more closely to OCBO than for example more personal attributions like conscientiousness or sportsmanship.
Affective organizational commitment OCBO Leader inclusiveness Psychological safety H1: β = .169 H2: β = .283** H3: β = .132 H4: β = -.090 H5: β = .072
27 The civic virtue subscale consist out of four different items and the reliability of the scale was sufficient enough to do additional analysis with (α = .742). The reliability and the correlation between civic virtue and the other variables are showed in table 3. The main variables of affective organizational commitment (r = .186, p = .034), psychological safety (r = .246, p = .005) and leader inclusiveness (r = .332, p > .001) had a significant correlation with civic virtue. Gender did not have a significant correlation (r = -.170 , p = .052), although, an effect might be expected because the variable is nearly significant.
Table 3: Descriptives and correlation between variables (Cronbach's Alphas on diagonal)
M SD 1 1. Civic virtue 5.004 0.808 (.742) 2. Agea 3.939 1.369 -.005 3. Genderb 1.466 0.516 -.170 4. Educational levelc 4.176 0.907 .033 5. Tenure 10.781 10.730 -.046
6. Affective organizational commitment 4.290 0.842 .186*
7. Psychological safety 5.058 0.774 .246**
8. Leader inclusiveness 3.083 1.001 .332**
Note. N=131, * p<.05, **p<.01
a1 = <20, 2 = 20-30, 3 = 31-40, 4 = 41-50, 5 = 51-60, 6 = >60 b1 = female, 2 = male, 3 = other
c1 = no education, 2 = high school, 3 = secondary school, 4 = university of applied sciences, 5 = university
After the analysis of the reliability and the correlations a hierarchical regression was done with civic virtue as dependent variable. The results of the performed analysis can be seen in table 4. In the first model only control variables were added to the analysis. In this model gender (β = .182, t = -2.037, p = .044) had a significant effect on the dependent variable civic virtue. In the first model not only gender was added, the same control variables as in the main analysis were also added (age, educational level and tenure).
28
Table 4: Regression Results of main (Model 2) and interaction effects (Model 3) of the leader inclusiveness vignette
Civic virtue (DV) Model!1 Model!2 Model 3
Coefficient SE Beta Coefficient SE Beta Coefficient SE Beta
Constant 5.149** 0.472 3.252** 0.667 3.219** 0.823
Age 0.018 0.064 0.030 0.049 0.062 0.083 0.050 0.062 0.084
Gender -0.286* 0.140 -0.182 -0.327* 0.134 -0.209 -0.336* 0.133 -0.215
Educational level 0.057 0.084 0.064 -0.065 0.081 0.072 0.037 0.081 -0.132
Tenure -0.003 0.008 -0.044 -0.008 0.008 -0.109 -0.010 0.008 -0.132
Affective organizational commitment 0.143 0.085 0.149 0.307** .117 0.320
Psychological safety 0.220* 0.092 0.211 0.116 0.124 0.111
Vignette (inclusive leadership 0.273* 0.136 0.170 0.268* 0.135 0.166
Affective organizational commitment * Vignette -0.330* 0.166 -0.240
Psychological safety * Vignette 0.231 0.183 0.148
R2 0.035 0.154 0.184
29 The second model includes the main variables. In this model, gender (β = -.209, t = -2.442, p = .016), psychological safety (β = .211, t = 2.392, p = .018) and leader inclusiveness (β = .170, t = -2.006, p = .047) measured by the version of the vignette, had a significant effect on the dependent variable. These results show some similarities with the main analysis done in this research, for example a main effect of psychological safety is also found in this analysis, and still no main effect of affective organizational commitment is found (β = .149, t = 1.683, p = .095). Contrary to the main analysis is that in this analysis a main effect found of leader inclusiveness is found.
In the third and last model the interaction variables are added to the regression. When added to the regression the interaction variable of leader inclusiveness and affective organizational commitment turned out to have a significant effect (β = -.240, t = -1.991, p = .049), on the dependent variable civic virtue. When this interaction effect is plotted (see figure 3), it can be seen that the effect of commitment on civic virtue is stronger when there is no inclusive leader. Furthermore gender (β = -.215, t = -2.531, p = .013), affective organizational commitment (β = .320, t = 2.618, p = .010) and leader inclusiveness (β = .166, t = 1.985, p = .049) have a significant effect on the dependent variable.
Figure 3: Plot of the interaction effect of inclusive leadership and organizational commitment on civic virtue2 2 made with a worksheet from: http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm
1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Low affective organizational commitment
High affective organizational commitment Civic virtu e No inclusive leader Inclusive leader
30 The found interaction effect can be explained by stating that an inclusive leader might accept people more for who they are and what they as a person think is important, while a non-inclusive leader might expect the kind of behaviour from his/her employees that is measured by civic virtue, because the leader thinks it is the right behaviour to show. For example, an employee with an inclusive leader might rather help new co-workers around at the office than attend non-mandatory meetings of which a non-inclusive leader might have thought was more important for the organization and therefore expected employees to spend their time on the meeting. This in combination with the tendencies of more committed employees to show more behaviour that a manager would approve will show the interaction effect as showed by figure 3.
The found interaction effect in the conducted additional analysis, partly supports H4 of the main model investigated in this research. An interaction effect was found of leader inclusiveness on the effect of affective organizational commitment on a subscale of OCBO. However, it was in a different direction than hypothesised in the theoretical framework. In this additional analysis a main effect of leader inclusiveness was found as well, which is in contrary to the original model when no main effect was found.
In the additional analysis, no interaction effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect affective organizational commitment on civic virtue is found if the control variables are not added (β = -.231, t = -1.934, p = .055). Especially for the control variable of gender, that was significant in almost every analysis has an effect on the interaction effects. When gender is not added as a control variable to the hierarchical regression but age, educational level and tenure are, the interaction effect is not significant (β = -.223, t = -1.812, p = .072). When only gender is added as a control variable the interaction effect is significant again (β = -.257, t = -2.183, p = .031). This shows that gender definitely has an effect in the model. Elaboration on the reason for this relation will be done in the discussion because no gender effect was hypothesised or included in the scope of this research.
Next to the extra analysis on civic virtue some other analyses were done to see if there are more non-hypostasised effects in the collected data. Analyses were done with all three different
31 subscales of OCBO (conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue), also an analysis was done with a combination of sportsmanship and civic virtue as dependent variable. This was done because after an initial analysis these two subscales seem to correlate better with the independent variables moreover, they reflect better the definition of OCBO in their questions added to the survey. Analyses were also done to check if not only one of the two interaction variables had a significant effect on the outcome variable, this to verify if a small part of the model was significant while the whole model was not. This was done by only including main effects and interaction effects of either affective organizational commitment or psychological safety. These analyses did not have any noteworthy results.
32 Discussion
Summary
In this research the effect of leader inclusiveness on organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization was examined. This was done in order to give an answer to the following research question: ‘’To what extent does inclusive leadership influence organizational citizenship behaviour
aimed at the organization and the effects of organizational commitment and psychological safety on organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the organization?’’.
The main effects of affective organizational commitment, psychological safety and leader inclusiveness were examined in the first three hypotheses. The first hypothesis was rejected and therefore no main effect of affective organizational commitment on OCBO was found. Further explanation on the rejected hypothesis is given in the discussion points. The second hypothesis was about the main effect of psychological safety on OCBO. This hypothesis, as expected, was supported by the data in this research. The last main effect researched was the main effect of leader inclusiveness on OCBO. H3 which hypothesised this effect, was not supported by the analysis. A possible explanation for not finding a significant main effect could be the used scale for OCBO. Relationships differ strongly amongst the different subscales of OCBO.
H4 and H5 hypothesised different interaction effects. H4 hypothesised an interaction effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect of affective organizational commitment on the effect of OCBO. Unexpectedly, no significant effect was found. The last hypothesis tested of the main model was H5. H5 stated that there was an effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect of psychological safety on OCBO. Unexpectedly, there was no significant interaction effect found. A possible explanation for not finding any significant moderation relates back to an earlier explanation on not finding significant results, the measures in this research could have had quite an effect on the found and not found relationships in the main model.
After the analyses done above some additional analyses were done. One analysis was done with civic virtue, a subscale of organizational citizenship behaviour. When the analysis was done,
33 several significant effects were found. Psychological safety and inclusive leadership turned out to have a significant main effect on civic virtue. Next to the main effects found a significant interaction effect was found as well. An effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect of affective organizational commitment on civic virtue was found. The effect was such that civic virtue was higher without an inclusive leader and higher when affective organizational commitment was high rather than low. These findings suggest that, H3, the main effect of leader inclusiveness on OCBO and H4 the interaction effect of affective organizational commitment, are partially supported. The hypotheses were not confirmed, even though it was shown that for H3 the effect hypothesised was existing yet not in all subscales of OCBO. For H4 this was quite different, although it was shown that there is an interaction effect existing of leader inclusiveness on the effect of affective organizational commitment on civic virtue it was not in the direction hypothesised in H4.
An unexpected finding during this research was the effect that gender had on the dependent variable. In both analyses, the main analysis with OCBO and the additional analysis with civic virtue as dependent variable, gender had a significant effect. In the models that tested main effects and the models that tested interaction effects gender turned out to have a significant effect. The effects showed that women tend to show more organizational citizenship behaviour than people who identify differently. This effect only increases in effect size when the dependent variable is changed to civic virtue in the analysis. Özkan and Lajunen (2006) show in their research that in traffic situations women tend to show behaviour that considers others more than men do. This might be a reason women tend to show more civic virtue, behaviour that according to Allen and Rush (1998) is more expected by managers than the definition of organizational citizenship behaviour might imply.
Discussion points
This research has several limitations that should be noted. A limitation that should be discussed is the fact that a lot of old measures were used here. Both affective organizational commitment and OCBO were measured by measures published in 1990, while psychological safety was measured by a measure
34 published in 1999. Little is known about the applicability of these scales in the current business environment. In this study the item ‘’Attendance at work is above the norm. Does not take extra
breaks.’’, part of the conscientiousness scale, was deleted because in my opinion attendance is defined
differently nowadays than in 1990. Currently, flex working becomes more and more accepted and it is seen on a bigger scale than 30 years ago. Although the deletion of this item made logical sense it is not guaranteed that it is the right way to go. Questions about the reliability, apart from the Cronbach’s alpha, of the scale might still persist and even increase as time passes. It therefore might be beneficial for this research but also for other researches in this field to have more up to date scales and repeat the conducted research to check if the findings are applicable for the current period in time.
The last limitation discussed is about the distinction between organizational citizenship behaviour and in-role behaviours. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) refer to an ongoing debate about the explicit difference between the two behaviours. Although the definition stated before, it is clear that OCB is not formally rewarded or assumed to be displayed by an employee. Some research states that OCB clearly has an effect on the distribution of rewards (Allen & Rush, 1998) or on the performance rating by the manager (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993). If this is the case for all kinds of organizational citizenship behaviour, it sheds a different light on results found and especially on the argumentation of why and how employees show organizational citizenship behaviour in the first place. If an employee is no longer is intrinsically motivated but motivated by the rewards that a manager can give, antecedents could no longer have the expected effect on OCB. This argumentation might serve as an explanation on why there was no direct effect found of affective organizational commitment on OCBO. If feeling a sense of belonging to the organization is no longer a reason for the expression of organizational citizenship behaviour it makes sense that no effect is found. In this case research on the tendency of a manager to reward his/her employees for shown citizenship behaviour might find a direct effect.
A more positive aspect of this research is the use of a vignette. The use of a vignette gave useful results and clearly showed differences in leader inclusiveness, according to the participants in
35 the survey. However, one might also think about repeating this research making use of a different strategy to measure differences in leader inclusiveness in order to get an even better view at the possible effects of leader inclusiveness. This, for instance could be done in a study with a more experimental setting. This could show some effects of leader inclusiveness that cannot be revealed by the current research design.
Interpretation, contributions, practical implications and future research
A previous study by Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch and Topolnytsky (2002) showed that organizational commitment was an antecedent of OCB. In the current study, no main effect of affective organizational commitment on OCBO was found. This shows that the main effect could be more present in another subgroup of commitment, such as continuance or normative commitment. Another possibility could be that the main effect is only present in organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the individual. Future research should try to see what the important aspects of organizational commitment and OCB are in relation to each other, in order to get a better understanding of the phenomena and to understand how it can possibly increase beneficial behaviour of employees.
Several studies have showed that there is a positive relationship between psychological safety and OCB (Dutton, Ashford, ONeill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003). The findings of this study extends the current base of knowledge on the topic of psychological safety by showing that there is also a positive relationship between psychological safety and OCBO. It would be interesting to see if OCBI also has a relationship with psychological safety in order to verify if psychological safety has more positive effects than already established in this and earlier research. It should stimulate managers to create an even more psychological safe environment for their subordinates.
As stated before, there was no research done on the effect of leader inclusiveness on OCB before. Saunders, Sheppard, Knight and Roth (1992) and Tangirala and Ramanujam (2012) showed that there was an effect of leadership on employees speaking up. It was assumed that there could be a
36 relationship between leader inclusiveness and OCBO. However, no main effect was found between the two variables. Additional analyses showed that there was an effect between leader inclusiveness and civic virtue. Thus, future research should determine to what extent this effect is visible in more subscales of OCB, especially those related to organizational citizenship behaviour aimed at the individual, because this was not a part of the current study.
When researching the main model in this research, no interaction effects were found. However, in the additional analysis a significant interaction effect was found. The results of this research therefore extent previously done research on different forms of citizenship behaviours and shows that leadership effects the relationship of the different variables.
This research has some practical implications. Like others, this research shows the importance of psychological safety. Several studies already report that psychological safety is a basic need for employees to speak up and show citizenship behaviour, in order to do their job in a way more beneficial for the company and more appreciated by the manager (Dutton, Ashford, ONeill, Hayes, & Wierba, 1997; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003). This makes psychological safety essential for managers if they want to increase the employees’ tendencies to improve the organization. Furthermore, an employee that feels able to be who he/she is will feel more comfortable in the workplace.
Another practical implication comes from the main effect found between leader inclusiveness and civic virtue. Although leader inclusiveness does not have the same effect as psychological safety on OCBO, inclusive leadership has a positive relationship with civic virtue which is perceived as a positive behaviour by an employee. A more inclusive leader, therefore, will have a positive effect on the behaviour of his/her employees.
The last practical implication derives from the found interaction effect of leader inclusiveness on the effect of affective organizational commitment. Although a subordinate without an inclusive leader in this interaction effect might show more civic virtue, in this research it is assumed that this behaviour is shown because its more expected by the supervisor and it might cost the employee the tendency to help fellow employees in other ways than specifically is expected by the non-inclusive
37 leader. Although this explanation might seem logical the effect was not hypothesised, so more research should be done to make sure this is the case.
Next to the extra research that should be done on the found interaction effect, a possible direction for future research are the effect of gender on OCB and other variables used in this research. Gender had significant effects on almost every dependent variable used in almost every model. Therefore, it might be very interesting to see what mechanisms cause this effect and what possible implications of this research can be. Another interesting follow-up research could be on the effect of leader inclusiveness on the other subscales of OCB. Research could be done on the subscales of altruism and courtesy (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) because these subscales were not included in the current research. By researching the relationship between leader inclusiveness and all subscales of OCB, a better image of the effects of this new leadership style can be created. During this research some difficulties were found with the use of several old measuring scales. As stated before, more research is needed to create more robust and representative tools to investigate these topics in the current period of time
38 Conclusion
Previous research on antecedents and moderators of organizational citizenship behaviour focused on the phenomena as a whole. Although this kind of research has important implications, it does not show the employees’ tendencies to improve the organization. This vignette study showed that psychological safety is of great importance for employees to show behaviour in order to improve the organization. Psychological safety gives employees the freedom to think about and suggest improvements to the organization. Unfortunately, leader inclusiveness and affective organizational commitment did not have this effect on the employees’ behaviour. The research question can be answered by stating that leader inclusiveness did not have any effects on the amount of OCBO shown by employees. Unexpected results show that inclusive leadership moderates the effect of affective organizational commitment on civic virtue and therefore makes people participate less, and makes people being less involved and considerate of the organization. In short, to improve the tendencies of employees to improve the organization a manager should give his/her employees the feeling that they are psychological safe.
39 References
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. (2014). Best Practice Recommendations for Designing and Implementing Experimental Vignette Methodology Studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17, 351-371. Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Allen, T., & Rush, M. (1998). The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Performance
Judgments: A Field Study and a Laboratory Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247-260.
Barrick, M., & Mount, M. (1991). THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META-ANALYSIS. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 44, 1-26.
Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision.
Organizational dynamics, 3, 19-31.
Bies, R. (1989). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. (2009). Learning Behaviors in the workplace: The Role of High-quality Interpersonal Relationships ad Psychological Safety. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 26, 81-98.
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive Leadership and Employee Involvement in Creative Tasks in the Workplace: The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety. CREATIVITY
RESEARCH JOURNAL, 22:3, 250-260.
Chahal, H., & Metha, S. (2010). ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR (OCB): A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK IN REFERENCE TO HEALTH CARE SECTOR. Journal of Services Research, 10, 25-44.
Connelly, B., Certo, S., Ireland, R., & Reutzel, C. (2011). Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment.
Journal of Management, 1, 39-67.
Detert, J., & Burris, E. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the Door Really Open?
40 Dutton, J., Ashford, S., ONeill, R., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. (1997). Reading the Wind: How Middle
Managers Assess the Context for Selling Issues to Top Managers. Strategic Management
Journal, 18, 407-423.
Edmonson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. /Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
Finch, J. (1987). The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology, 21(1), 105-114. Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership.
Hirak, R., Peng, A., Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2012). Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and lerning from failures. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23, 107-117.
Hunter, S., Bedell, K., & Mumford, M. (2007). Climate for Creativity: A Quantitative Review. Creativity
Research Journal, 19, 69-909.
Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. The
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. (2015). Underlying Motives of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Comparing Egoistic and Altruistic Motivations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 22, 129-148.
MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., & Fetter, R. (1993). The Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Evaluations of Salesperson Performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70-80.
Meyer, J., Stanley, D., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.
Milliken, F., Morrison, E., & Hewlin, P. (2003). An Exploratory Study of Employee Silence: Issues that Employees Don’t Communicate Upward and Why. Journal of Management Studies, 40:6, 1453-1476.
