Unlocking the change
“How inclusive leadership, accountability and diversity
unlock innovation”
Msc Business administration Master Thesis
Specialization Leadership and Management Author: Ella Hustinx 10358099
Primary Supervisor: Renske E. van Geffen Secondary Supervisor: Hannah A. Berkers
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Ella Hustinx 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.
Abstract
A firm’s ability to compete in the turbulent 21st century is rooted in its ability to innovate. Changing demographics, environmental factors, advancing technology and economic constraints drive the need for innovation and adaptability in order to survive. Also, organizations are increasingly involved in managing its diversity. The current study investigates the potential of inclusive leadership to unlock innovation within teams, moderated by underlying level diversity in cross-functional teams. This relation was further investigated by taking a motivational factor, accountability, into account. The proposed model was tested with PROCESS analysis, over 250
employees working within teams across multiple organizations. This study provided support for the positive relation between inclusive leadership and team innovation. In addition, some support was found for the moderation of diversity within this model, but this however, needs further examination in future research. Finally, results of the present research suggest that inclusive leaders stimulate innovation through an
increased amount of accountability, only when autonomy is high. All in all, this study suggests that inclusive leader behaviors are essential in order to unlock change and subsequently, stay competitive.
Table of Contents
INDEX OF FIGURES AND TABLES 5
INDEX OF APPENDICES 5
1 INTRODUCTION 6
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1. Inclusive leadership and its influence on team innovation 9
2.2 The moderation by diversity. 12
2.3 Inclusive leadership and Accountability 15
2.4 Accountability and Team Innovation 18
3 METHODS 20
3.1 SAMPLES AND PROCEDURE 20
3.2 MEASURES 21 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS 25 3.4 PREDICTIONS 26 4 RESULTS 27 4.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 27 4.2 THE ANALYSES 29 4.2.1 Accountability 29 4.2.2 Diversity 31
4.2.3. Additional Analysis – Autonomy 33
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 36
5.1 Discussion 36
5.2 Research Contributions 40
5.3 Limitations and Future research 42
5.4 Managerial Implications 44
5.5 Conclusion 46
REFERENCES 47
APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS 62
Index of Figures and Tables Figure 1. The research model
Figure 2. Graphical view of the simple slopes analysis
Figure 3. Research model of the mediation including Autonomy Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Correlations
Table 2. Results of the PROCESS analysis of the mediation with Accountability Table 3. Results of the PROCESS analysis of the moderation by Diversity Table 4. Results of the PROCESS analysis of the conditional effects of Diversity Table 5. Results of the moderated mediation analysis using PROCESS
Table 6. Results of the simple slopes analysis of the relationship between inclusive leadership on accountability on different values of autonomy
Table 7. Results of the PROCESS analysis of the conditional indirect effects of inclusive leadership on innovation at different values of autonomy
Index of Appendices
Appendix A Questionnaire Instructions Appendix B Questionnaire Items
1. Introduction
Recently adaptability and innovation within organizations have been identified as key factors in the effectiveness of work teams (Bear, 2012). Today’s businesses have to thrive in a world of tremendous change. Companies become more and more diverse and face rapid changes due to changing demographics, economical
constraints, environmental factors and rapid advances in technology. The digital disruption reshapes the way in which companies all over the world operate and communicate with their consumers, and competitors can arise from unexpected places. These factors force companies to stay flexible and innovative in order to survive. Therefore it is understandable, that within a huge survey among 1500 executives, 75% of them reported innovation and adaptability among their top three priorities (Wagner, Taylor, Zablit & Poo, 2014).
Innovation is predicted by a wide array of individual and organizational factors, which has implications for managers to shape and create an innovative workforce (Unsworth & Parker, 2003). An increasing number of studies highlight the value of inclusive leadership within organizations, which gives reason to further examine its potential relation to innovation (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv, 2010; Membhard & Edmondson, 2005; Barak & Levin, 2002). Inclusive leadership is a relational leadership style in which leaders exhibit openness, accessibility and
availability in their interactions with followers (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv, 2010; Membhard & Edmondson, 2006). As Hollander (2012), states: “doing things with people, rather than doing things to people”. This can result in strong leader-member relations, collective team goals and increased adaptability (Hirak, Carmeli &
Also, inclusive leaders encourage and value different viewpoints and contributions of diverse members within the team, by making people feel safe to speak up (Mitchell, Boyle, Parker, Giles, Chaing & Joyce, 2015; Edmondson, 1999; Membhard & Edmondson, 2006). They include others in discussions and decisions in which their voices and perspectives might otherwise be absent (Membhard &
Edmondson, 2006). In the race for new ideas and innovation, diversity of thinking stemming from diverse individuals could generate breakthrough insights and reduce the risk of being blindsided (Homan, Van Knippenberg & van Kleef, 2007).
Therefore, by the use of inclusive practices, an increased and more diverse input of their diverse team members could be expected (Dillon & Bourke, 2012).
This research will thus elaborate on how inclusive leadership influences the innovativeness of teams, with team-diversity as a proposed influencer (Mitchell et al., 2015). Additionally, accountability will be added in order to partly explain the
mechanisms though which inclusive leadership predicts innovation (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Employees are increasingly held accountable for their actions (Hall, Zinko, Perryman & Ferris, 2009), because without accountability, individuals would be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want (Hall et al., 2009). As inclusive leaders stimulate the contribution of different members, encourage initiative (Randel, Dean, Ehrhart & Chung, 2013), and include others in their decisions and discussions (Membhard & Edmondson, 2006), employees could feel more accountable for their contributions. The research model and proposed hypotheses can be found in Figure 1.
Research on the way inclusive leaders may foster team innovation is vital because organizations often depend on teams that enable an organization to cope with emerging issues, thereby creating a competitive advantage over other companies (Carmeli et al., 2010). Gaining more information about the determinants of a team’s
innovative capacity and understanding what factors motivate teams to become more innovative, is essential in dealing effectively with today’s business world.
Figure 1. The research model
Based on the previously mentioned influencers on team innovation, the following research question arises: Do leader inclusiveness, felt accountability and professional diversity influence a team’s innovative capacity and how do they relate? Our research contributes to the existing literature in several ways; very little research on leader inclusiveness exists in the change literature, while preliminary results suggest its importance. Also research on accountability and its influencers and outcomes, has not kept pace with its importance (Hall, Zinki, Perryman & Ferris, 2009).
2. Literature review
This section will provide a theoretical background of inclusive leadership and Team innovation, followed by hypothesis regarding their relationship. Subsequently, this relationship will be further investigated while taking contextual and motivational factors into account. To be more precise: professional diversity and
self-Leader Inclusiveness Team Innovation Employee perceived Accountability H3 + H1 + H4 + H2 + Team Diversity
accountability. Explanations for the expected relation between the different variables will be given, each ending with a hypothesis. By confirming or negating these hypotheses, we will be one step closer to answering the research question.
2.1 Inclusive leadership and its influence on team innovation
Creative and innovative capacities are considered key drivers of the change process, necessary to survive in today’s ever more competitive business environment
(Bechtold, De Dreu, Nijstad & Choi, 2010). Innovation can be defined as the process of the successful implementation of creative ideas, whereas creativity itself is the production of novel and useful ideas (Amabile, 1988). Therefore, creativity could be seen as the foundation of innovation (Eisner, 2016). By exploiting existing
competencies and exploring new ones, firms keep renewing themselves and remain competitive (Floyd & Lane, 2000).
These two forms of innovation, exploratory and exploitative innovation, have their own innovative focus. Exploratory innovation is about pursuing new knowledge and the development of new products and services. Activities usually include
experimenting, innovating, divergent thinking and problem solving (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Exploitative innovation is a way of creating innovation by building on existing knowledge and extending products and services (Benner & Tushman, 2003, p.243), focusing on production, efficiency, convergent thinking and execution (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Within this study both types of innovation will be taken into account. But how does inclusive leadership relate to these innovative team processes?
Inclusive leaders seem to possess certain specific characteristics that stimulate dynamics within teams, which have already been proven to relate to innovation. Examples of these dynamics are free exchange of information, open questioning,
shared decision making and strong diversity beliefs (Amabile, 1999; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993; Tesluk, Farr & Klein, 1997). In the following paragraphs the mechanisms through which inclusive leadership stimulates several team dynamics will be discussed.
In a study by Nembard & Edmondson’s (2006) inclusive leadership is defined as “words and deeds by a leader that indicates the invitation and appreciation for others’ contributions” (p. 947). By exhibiting openness, availability and accessibility to their followers, inclusive leaders take on a role as coach. This way the leader facilitates a climate in which people feel safe to speak up (Membhard & Edmondson, 2006). Through this, individuals perceive a “comfort with being themselves”
(Edmondson, 1999, p.254) and feel able to show and employ themselves without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status and career” (Kahn, 1990, p.708). This is a prerequisite to express creativity and stimulate innovation because this way, individuals are more likely to make innovative suggestions for change and are more comfortable to voice and speak up. (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, Ziv, 2010; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Ed Catmull, the CEO of Pixar, confirms this by stating that creativity is fostered by creating a safe and trustful environment where people can tell the truth and constantly challenge each other’s assumptions (Catmull, 2008).
Additionally, this safe and trustful environment also contributes to an increased ability of an organization to learn from failures (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2008). The ability to learn from failures seems crucial for the survival of an
organization as it creates opportunities to adapt to the changing environment and therefore catalyze change by itself (Carmeli & Sheaffer, 2008). As Brené Brown, American scholar at the University of Houston, states: “There is no innovation and creativity without failure” (Brown, 2013).
Moreover, inclusive leadership is seen a special form of relational leadership, because of their exhibition of openness, accessibility and availability in their
interactions with followers (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv, 2010). The leader exhibits concern about the needs, interests and feelings of the followers, willing to provide assistance when needed (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv, 2010). This way, followers receive emotional and beneficial resources (Strom et al., 2014). According to the social exchange theory, employees who receive beneficial resources are encouraged to reciprocate. This stimulates them to put extra effort into solving a problem that often requires them to formulate useful and creative ideas (Hu, Ou, Chiou & Lin, 2012). Secondly, through the relational support, leaders can be supportive of
innovative and creative behavior (Arad, Hason & Schnieder, 1997; Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999). Support for innovation, explained 46% of the variance in total
innovation in a study of West and Anderson (1996), underscoring its importance. Apart from the leaders exhibiting openness, accessibility and availability, inclusive leaders also tend to stimulate shared decision making by making sure everyone within the team participates and is included in decisions and discussions (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2005). By constantly inviting and appreciating the contributions of employees, decision-making becomes more decentralized and information will be increasingly generated and shared (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2005; Perry-Smith & Manucci, 2017; Van dyne & LePine, 1998). In a study
conducted among 156 enterprises, innovation and company performance were highly related to the extent to which these companies used employee suggestions (Turgoose, et al., 2000). In line with the expectations, Benner and Tushman (2003) found that decentralized decision-making indeed has a positive effect on innovation.
other leadership styles by its focus on overcoming status or power differences and its attention to behaviors that acknowledge the value of diversity on others’ views (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Also, inclusive leadership constitutes the path through which a leader increases the work engagement of employees by attending to their needs (Hollander, 2012). Both in the end seem to increase work engagement, thereby positively influencing creativity (Choi, Tran & Park, 2015)
Thus, inclusive leaders try to include others in decisions and discussions, and constantly invite and appreciate other’s contributions (Membhard & Edmondson, 2005). This behavior can overcome status differences, which makes it easier for employees to speak up, ask questions, offer ideas and raise concerns. Inclusive leadership drives decision making down to the front line, allowing the people most likely to detect changes in the business environment to respond quickly and
proactively (Moss & Sims, 2016). By doing so, increased participation of team members is expected and information sharing will be maximized, which explained different aspects of innovation within a study of West & Anderson (1996). Therefore the following hypothesis arises:
H1: Inclusive leadership is positively related to team innovative capacity.
2.2 The moderation by diversity
Companies are increasingly concerned with diversity due to changing population demographics, civil right gains by woman and racial/ethnic minorities (Triandis, Kurowski & Gelfand, 1994; Thomas & Ely, 1996), and the use of various types of work groups and teams to get tasks done (Ilgen, 1999). The exposure to an
increasingly diverse work pool might be considered both a disadvantage and an advantage. Diversity in often associated with less desirable outcomes such as reduced
cohesion and greater conflict proneness (Moreland, Levine & Wingerd, 1996;
Williams & O’Reily, 1988). Controversially, diversity in knowledge and information promotes group creativity (Hülsheger, Anderson & Salgado, 2009).
Subsequently, diversity in terms of background, areas of specialization, and work responsibilities can be very relevant in terms of the creative and innovative potential of teams (Amabile, Conti, Croon, Lazenbty & Herron, 1996; Payne, 1990; Woodman et al., 1993). Heterogeneous teams may enjoy relationships among people with different sets of contacts, skills, information and experiences. This may provide a more comprehensive analysis of a problem and therefore leads to more informed and innovative solutions (Mannix & Neale, 2005). As quoted by Kanter: “Contact with those who see the world differently is a logical prerequisite to seeing it differently ourselves” (Kanter, 1988: p.175). In this sense, diversity can lead to an increase in the variety of perspectives and approaches, more opportunities for knowledge sharing and greater creativity and innovation as it sparks new ideas and insights (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Paulus, 2000).
Paradoxically, diversity can also have negative effects by creating social divisions and conflicts which, in turn, creates poor social integration, a decrease in team cohesion and communication resulting in negative group outcomes (Webber & Donohue, 2001; Northcraft, Neale & Jehn, 1999). In order to explain these
differences, researchers disentangled different types of diversity influencing team processes. From 50 years of research it can be concluded that surface-level types of diversity, such race/ethnicity, gender and age, tend to have more negative effects on successful group functioning (Mannix & Neale, 2005). In contrast, underlying differences in functional background, education and personality are more often
positively related to performance, creativity and innovation. Therefore, within this study, the focus will lie on the underlying differences in diversity.
The influence of leaders in highly diverse groups appears to be an important factor in determining team dynamics (Mitchell et al., 2015). Since knowledge generation, sharing and elaboration are the processes through which diverse groups have to go in order to benefit from their underlying pluriformity, such groups are in need of an environment stimulating the sharing and exchange of divergent
perspectives. Hence, diversity is an asset that should be actively managed. Recently, inclusive leadership has been acknowledged as a potential key determinant for performance, particularly in diverse groups (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010; Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart & Singh, 2011). Inclusive leaders can integrate the different perspectives from diverse team members by stimulating and appreciating everyone’s contributions (Shore et al., 2011). By the openness, availability and accessibility exhibited by the inclusive leader, team members are encouraged to share their diverse perspectives (West & Anderson, 1996; Membhard & Edmondson, 2006). This reduces the risk of being blindsided and enhances innovation and adaptability as different views are taken into account (Dillon & Bourke, 2016). A growing body of research evidence suggests that tolerance of minority groups and the promotion of diverse views are necessary for innovation (DeDreu & West, 2001; Østergaard, Timmermans & Kristinsson, 2011). Through this, equal access and opportunity can be achieved, which enables teams to benefit most from its diversity.
However, inclusive practices alone are insufficient to realize the full potential of the team members: there has to be diversity. Therefore, the relation between inclusive leadership and team adaptability is moderated by the amount of
professional/ underlying diversity within a team. Team level creativity generally tends to benefit from particular forms of diversity of its individual members. When
professional diversity is high (cross functional), there will be more diversity in
thinking and more team members who identify different risks, opportunities and point of view. Subsequently the following hypothesis arises:
H2: Professional diversity moderates the relationship between inclusive leadership and team adaptability, such that the relationship is positive for high levels of professional diversity and non-significant for low levels of professional diversity
2.3 Inclusive leadership and accountability
Accountability has been viewed as the most fundamental element of organizations as it is impossible to operate without it (Hall et. al., 2009; Frink & Klimiski, 2004). Accountability is all about holding people answerable for their decisions and actions and is therefore able to channel and shape behavior in
organizationally prescribed directions. This forms a basis for shared expectations and the maintenance for any type of social system (Tetlock, 1992). Although this suggests its importance, little is known about its antecedents and consequences (Frink et al., 2008)
In this study, accountability is conceptualized as perceived or felt
accountability (Frink & Klimiski, 1998), because accountability is largely subjective and can therefore be differentially interpreted across individuals (Tetlock, 1992). Hence, accountability is measured on an individual subjective level. An employee will feel accountable as the expectation arises that one’s behaviors will be subject to evaluation by audience(s) including one’s self (Frink and Klimiski, 1998). This
evaluation is based on both formal (what is found in their written job descriptions) and informal (what is not officially required but what employees think that they need to do, given the norms in the workplace) aspects of their work (Hall et al., 2009). Subsequently, the feeling of accountability is related to the possibility to receive either rewards or sanctions based on the expected evaluation (Hall, Frink, Ferris, Hochwarter, Kacmar & Bowen, 2003).
Accountability is a phenomenon that has the potential to possess both positive and negative associations with work attitudes and behaviors (Hochwarter, Perrewé, Hall & Ferris, 2006). There has to be a sufficient amount of accountability to channel and shape behavior in appropriate directions, but it should not be perceived as overly controlling, revealing its darker side (Hall, Zinko, Perryman & Ferris, 2009). This is usually revealed when employees believe the demands put on them, go beyond their capabilities and resources (Hall et al., 2006), producing resistance and stress among employees (Ferris, Mitchell, Canavan, Frink & Hopper, 1995; Wallace, Johnson, Mathe & Paul, 2011; Hall et al., 2006). Therefore, holding individuals accountable for their decisions and actions is a process that needs to be managed carefully (Ordónez, Benson & Beach, 1999). Taking a closer look at the impact of stimulation of
accountability by inclusive leadership practices seems warranted.
As previously stated, inclusive leaders constantly encourage initiative (Randel, Dean, Ehrhart & Chung, 2013) and stimulate high levels of participation in decision-making and discussions. By doing this, a norm arises for employees to think along, be participative and concerned with the team’s actions, discussions and decisions.
Inclusive leadership in this case, just like transformational leadership, aims to lead employees to expend exceptional effort and go beyond the expected (Unsworth & Parker, 2003). Through this, the social context provides meaning as to what types of
attitude and behaviors are salient and appropriate. The more the group behaves the same way in a given situation, the more group members will tend to view that behavior as appropriate (Thibaut & Kelley, 1978). These shared expectations and norms, in turn, create accountability (Brennan, Eriksson, Goodin & Southwood, 2013).
According to the he Learned Industriousness Theory (LIT), when employees are encouraged and rewarded for thinking along and engaging is discussions and decisions, employees are provided with behaviorally relevant information that guides goal directed behavior (Eisenberger, 1992; Byron & Khazanchi, 2012). Goal directed behavior and the presence of shared goals, gives employees a feeling of responsibility to make decisions that are in line with the long-term interest of the company (Avey, Wernsing & Palanski, 2012). Through this, a feeling of greater accountability for the team’s performance, its long term goals and team decisions will arise.
Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, inclusive leadership can be seen as a special form of relational leadership, which arises from the exhibition of openness, accessibility and availability in their interactions with followers (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv, 2010). The leader exhibits concern about the needs, interests and feelings of the followers, willing to provide assistance and support when needed (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv, 2010). Through this, leaders provide their followers with emotional and beneficial resources (Strom et al., 2014). According to the social exchange theory, employees who receive beneficial resources are encouraged to reciprocate (Emerson, 1976). This perception of needing to reciprocate can result in a feeling of increased accountability (Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1975; Nishii & Mayer, 2009).
All in all, it can be expected that employees of inclusive leaders are more likely to hold each other and themselves accountable (Avey, Wernsing & Palanski, 2017). Following this reasoning, the next hypothesis arises:
H3: Leader inclusiveness is positively related to employee-felt accountability
2.4 Accountability and team innovation
Previously, we hypothesized about the feeling of accountability that would arise within employees as a function of inclusive leadership practices. Subsequently, the question arises of how accountability in turn, could affect innovation. As
mentioned in the previous section, accountability is generally positioned as an important determinant for the effective operation of any organization. Nonetheless, too much accountability can also reveal its darker side (Hall et al., 2006; Royle et al., 2005). This side is revealed when employees believe the demands put on them, go beyond their capabilities and resources (Hall et al., 2006), decreasing creative performance (Byron, Khazanchi & Nazarian, 2010; Amabile, 1998).
According to the Self-Determination Theory extremely high levels of accountability could lead to employees feeling overly controlled. This feeling
decreases employees’ intrinsic motivation and creativity by reducing their feelings of autonomy and competence (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012). However, SDT’s assumption that autonomy only had positive effects on performance, does not take the possibility into account that too much freedom may, in some cases, create confusion about where to direct one’s effort, thereby decreasing performance (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012). Contrary to the SDT, the Learned Industriousness Theory (LIT) states that forms of accountability promote creativity by clarifying that creativity is desired, valued and
worthy of directed effort (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012). In this case, the feeling of being accountable bears an informational aspect providing behaviorally relevant information that guides role directed behavior and, thus, increasing creative performance (Eisenberger, 1992; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994).
Furthermore, Oshana (2001) and Bracci (2009) actually found that
accountability and innovation reveal tight connections, and operate hand in hand. As a leader, when holding a follower accountable for their work, one must believe the follower is capable of the requested performance and behavior and think
autonomously. To exemplify, we do not hold small kid responsible for their behavior because we do not fully believe in their ability to operate autonomously. For the effective exertion of accountability, an individual needs a feeling of autonomy (Bracci, 2009). All in all, autonomous agency seems to be both sufficient and necessary for accountability (Oshana, 2001).
Adler and Chen (2011) conducted their research on organizational level (contrary to the SDT and LIT which were conducted on individual level) and could confirm that creativity and control should be combined for the successful completion of innovative tasks (Adler & Chen, 2011). This is especially the case within large-scale organizations, where creative tasks can be very complex and interdependent. All in all, creative tasks within large-scale organizations require more accountability and coordination in order to be innovative.
Lastly, felt accountability is positively related to employees taking charge of workplace change (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). As inclusive leaders expect their subordinates to participate and think along, one could think this enriches the jobs of their employees. Enriched jobs are being perceived as more challenging and lead
employees to be more knowledgeable, more able to see interrelations, and supporting of creativity (Farr & Ford 1990, Hackman & Oldham, 1980)
All in all, felt accountability seems to enhance innovation since it contains a behavioral component stimulating goal directed behavior. It is particularly necessary when creative work is complex and interdependent. This results in the following hypothesis:
H4: Felt accountability is positively related to team innovation
3 Method
3.1 Sample and procedure
The current investigation involves a multi-source quantitative study, which was conducted with the use of online questionnaires. These questionnaires were conducted among employees and their managers within teams. 426 employees and 79 team leaders were invited to participate in this study. 267 employees started filling out the dataset, of which 247 employees answered to all the variables of interest. These 247 employees were working among 66 teams with 66 corresponding leaders (response rate 77%). Two different questionnaires were developed: 1) A leader questionnaire and 2) a subordinate questionnaire. All questionnaires were available in Dutch and English, and were distributed by E-mail. Qualtrics, an online web survey tool, was used to collect the data. The respondents were recruited in partnership with 6 other Master students of the University of Amsterdam. The participants were recruited on the basis of convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is a type of nonprobability sampling where participants are recruited on the basis of easy accessibility,
geographical proximity, availability and willingness to participate (Etikan, Musa & Alkassim, 2016)
The subordinates and their leaders all participated on a voluntary basis and did not receive remuneration in any form. Confidentiality of their participation was assured and instructions were provided (See Appendix A). The questionnaire for the subordinates focused on inclusive leadership, accountability and innovation and took approximately 20 minutes to complete. The leader questionnaire focused on team professional diversity and took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Matching codes were used to match the leader with their corresponding subordinate. Participants did not receive something in return for their participation.
Among the subordinates, 41,1% was female and 58,1% male. They worked for the organization for a minimum of 1 month to a maximum of 43 years (M= 8,56 SD=4.03). The vast majority (79.8%) was aged between 20 and 50 years. Of the leaders 37,9% was female and 62,1% male. The greater part of the leaders (78,8%) was aged between 20 and 50 years, and the other 21,2 % was aged above 50. Their working tenure ranged from 1 year to 38 years (M = 9,41; SD=1,18). Both a majority of the subordinates (71,5%) and the leaders (87,8%) had a University of Professional education degree or higher. The teams were all operating in different fields within the Netherlands ranging from finance and marketing to health care.
3.2 Measures
Leader Inclusiveness was measured with the nine-item inclusive leadership scale
developed by Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon and Ziv (2010). We consider a leader self-assessment as less accurate and reliable and therefore conducted the leader inclusiveness assessment by the subordinates (Ross, 2006). Three dimensions of
inclusive leadership were assessed, namely; Leaders’ openness to new ideas (three items; e.g., “The manager is open to hearing new ideas”), Leaders’ accessibility (4 items; e.g., “The manager is ready to listen to my requests”) and Leaders’ availability (2 items; e.g., “The manager encourages me to access him/her on emerging issues. Respondents indicated their agreement with each item using a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree).
Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon and Ziv (2010) did not take the decision-making dimension of inclusive leadership into account. Therefore, three items out of the 12-item scale of Ahearne, Mathieu and Rapp (2005) were added. These three 12-items are about the leader behavior that fosters participation in decision-making. An example item is “My manager often consults me on strategic decisions”. The Cronbach’s alpha values showed that the scale is highly reliable (Coefficient alpha=.93). Respondents indicated their agreement with each item using a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). Detailed results of both measures and the complete item wordings can be found in Appendix B.
Accountability. Eight items were used to measure an employee’s level of felt
accountability (Coefficient alpha=.78) (Hockwarter, Kacmar & Ferris, 2003). Felt accountability was measured though the subordinates because accountability can be differentially interpreted across individuals and therefore, should be measures as an individual subjective level (Tetlock, 1992). Sample items were “I often have to explain why I do certain things at work” and “To a great extent, the success of my immediate work group rests on my shoulders”. Respondents rated each item on 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Complete item wordings can be found in Appendix B.
Team Innovation was measured by the combination of two types of
innovation; exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation (Jansen, van den Bosch & Volberda, 2006). Each types of innovation consisted of seven items, making a total of 14 items. Exploratory innovation is mainly about pursuing new knowledge and developing new products and services. A sample item was “Our unit accepts demands that go beyond existing products and services”. Exploitative innovation builds on existing knowledge and extends existing products and services (e.g. “We frequently refine the provision of existing products and services. Both types of innovation were measured trough the subordinates. Respondents indicated their agreement with each item using a 7-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was .92. Complete item wordings can be found in Appendix B.
Functional diversity was measured by one question, answered by the leader
with a yes or no. The item was: “Would you describe your team as a cross functional team? (If you are unsure what is meant by this, please click no)”. A cross-functional team is a group of people with different functional expertise. It may include people from such diverse teams as finance, marketing, operations and human resource departments. These teams facilitate the interaction of members with distinct functional and educational backgrounds and therefore, guarantee diversity (Turkulainen & Ketokivi, 2012). Since a single item measured functional diversity, no reliability analysis was performed.
Control variable. To check for spurious relationships and confounding effects control variables were included. The first control variable is autonomy, which is a
measure trough 9 questions regarding the subordinate’s subjective feeling of autonomy (Cronbach’s alpha .87). (Breaugh, 1999; Hall et al., 2006; Royle et al.,
2005). To be held accountable, an individual needs to be autonomous in the sense of having the possibility to be held responsible. The other way around, autonomy with no accountability may lead to decreased responsibility in the organization (Bracci, 2008). Also, employees are more likely to innovate, when they have sufficient autonomy and control over their work (West & Altink, 2008). By noticing these possible interrelations, autonomy will be put as a control variable. An example question was “I am allowed to decide how to go about getting my job done”. Complete item wording can be found in Appendix B.
Task Dependency. Task dependency refers to the extent to which team
members are dependent on one another to carry out their tasks and perform effectively (Hülsheger, Anderson & Salgado, 2009). Task interdependency could influence innovation as interpersonal interaction, communication and cooperation are stimulated within the team when people are more dependent on each other to perform the task (Van der Vegt & Van der Vliert, 2002). By the increased interaction, team members can increasingly exchange ideas and discuss divergent viewpoint. Therefore, task dependency could increase the moderating effect of diversity on the relationship between leader inclusiveness and innovation. Task dependency was measures by three items created by Campion, Medsker & Higgs (1993). A sample item was “Others depend on me for information or materials from other members of my team. Complete item wordings could be found in Appendix B. Cronbach’s alpha was .75
Team cohesion. “Innovation researchers have tended to regard cohesion as a
necessary precondition for innovative work behavior” (West & Farr, 1989; woodman et al., 1993). Also individuals are more willing to take risks, challenge the status quo and explore new ways of doing things within cohesive teams (West & Wallace, 1991; West 1990). As team cohesion may be highly interdependent with innovation, it is of
importance to take team cohesion into account within the analysis. Team cohesion was measured by the 8 items of the Group Cohesiveness Scale by Dobbins and Zaccaro (1986). The Cronbach’s alpha was .81. Example items were “The members of my team get along well together “and “The team to which I belong is a close one”. Complete item wording can be found in Appendix B.
3.3 Data Analysis
In Table 1 the descriptive statistics of the measured variables are provided, consisting of the means, standard deviations, inter-correlations and Cronbach’s alphas. Inclusive leadership, accountability and innovation were all rated on a seven-point Likert scale. Knowing this, the means and standard deviations can already show us that respondents consider their leaders as highly inclusive (M=5.64, SD=0.94). Subsequently, respondents reported moderate levels of innovation (M=4.74, SD=1.00) and accountability (M=4.58, SD=0.85).
All scales show a Cronbach’s alpha above .70 and therefore, could be considered reliable (George & Mallery, 2003). Reliability is the extent to which the data collection techniques or analysis procedures yield consistent findings (Saunders et al., 2009). Subsequently, of all the tested variables, the corrected item-total correlations indicate that all items have a good correlation with the total scale score and none of them would affect reliability if deleted (Field, 2009). Therefore, none of the items were deleted. In order to create the scale means for inclusive leadership, innovation, accountability, autonomy and task dependency, the averaged items for each variable were computed. These total scale means of each variable were used to execute the analysis.
Primarily analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. When the z-scores of Skewness and Kurtosis of a construct lie between -1.96 and 1.96, the variable is normally distributed (George & Mallery, 2016; Field, 2009). The accountability and innovation variable were approximately normally distributed, in terms of Skewness and Kurtosis. However, the inclusive leadership variable shows extremely positive values of kurtosis (3.38, SE=.297), which indicates a very pointy and heavy tailed distribution. As the z-score of the kurtoses is 11,38, we can assume the data for inclusive leadership is non-normally distributed in terms of kurtosis. However, as our data is retrieved from a considerably large sample (N=257), we can rely on the Central limit Theorem. This theory states that within large samples, one can expect that the sample will be approximately normally distributed around the true population of the mean. Therefore, the data won’t be transformed but will be kept in mind during the analysis. No respondents were deleted from the dataset, as the analysis will be on individual level and IBM’s Statistical package of Social sciences (SPSS) excludes respondents with missing data in the analyses (list wise deletion of cases was selected).
3.4 Predictions
Stemming from the hypotheses, within this study it is expected to find a direct and positive relationship between Inclusive Leadership and Team innovativeness. On top of that, it is predicted that this relationship will be stronger, with high levels of team diversity. Subsequently, it is hypothesized to find a mediating, indirect effect of Self Accountability on Team Innovativeness. Additionally, this relationship between Leader Inclusiveness and Accountability will be stronger when team diversity is
higher. These relationships will be tested, by using several models of the PROCESS analysis of Hayes (2013).
4 Results
Chapter four outlines the findings emerged from the analyses. The first section will outline the descriptive statistics. First, the direct relationship between leader inclusiveness and innovation will be outlined. Subsequently, the mediating role of accountability on the relation between inclusive leadership and team innovation will be researched. Next the moderating effect of diversity on the leader inclusiveness – accountability relationship will be established. Lastly, an exploratory analysis of the control variables will be performed.
4.1 Descriptive statistics
The analyses will be conducted over the data of 250 employees. These employees answered to all the variables of interest. As SPSS automatically detects unanswered questions, only respondents with missing answers were excluded from the analysis.
The table below, reports the correlations of the tested variables, of which the significant results will be discussed (Table 1). The correlations show support for the first hypothesis, depicting a positive relation between inclusive leadership and team innovation (r =. 33, p < .001). Subsequently, the moderate positive relation between inclusive leadership and accountability (H3, r = .13, p =. 04), and the relation between accountability and innovation (H5, r = 28, p < .001) provides support for the mediation between inclusive leadership and innovation by accountability. Also diversity was significantly related to innovation, namely; (r = -.26, p = .001). All
these correlations provide some evidence for the interdependence of the variables, although some of the correlations are not very strong and further relations need to be investigated.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and Correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Innovation 4.74 1.00 (.92) 2. Inclusive leadership 5.64 0.94 .33** (.93) 3. Accountability 4.59 0.85 .28** .13* (.78) 4. Diversity 0.40 0.49 .26** .08 0.07 - Control variables 5. Autonomy 5.02 1.02 .34** .36** .09 .26** (.87) 6. Task dependency 4.99 1.23 .06 .11 .38** -.05 -.06 (.75) 7. Team Cohesion 5.46 0.82 .21** .34** .07 -.04 .25** .11 (.81) Note: N=250. Diversity was coded 1, cross functional team= yes, 2=no.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Of the control variables, autonomy shows significant correlation with innovation (r= .34, p< .001), inclusive leadership (r=.26, p<.001), and diversity (r=.26, p<.001). Team cohesion shows interdependency with two of the main variables, namely: innovation (r=.21, p<.001), and inclusive leadership (r=.34, p<.001). The last control variable, task interdependency, only shows a significant correlation with Accountability (r=.38, p<.001). These significant correlations indicate the importance of taking these three control variables into account in all future analyses.
The direct effect of inclusive leadership on innovation (H1) and accountability as mediator of this relationship (H3+5) will be further investigated. Subsequently the moderating effect of diversity on the relation between inclusive leadership and
innovation (H2) will be analyzed. Finally we will look into the influence of the control variables on the existing relationships.
4.2 The Analyses
For this analysis, several models of the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2013) with 5000 bootstrapped samples were used at a confidence level of 95%. The control variables are taken into account within all the following analysis. The respective mean-centered scores of all variables were used for the PROCESS analyses. The PROCESS results of the mediation and the direct effect of inclusive leadership on innovation can be found in table 2.
To test the direct effect from inclusive leadership on team innovation, model four of PROCESS was used, with inclusive leadership, self-accountability and innovation as the main variables. All the control variables and diversity as an extra were included as covariates. The relation between inclusive leadership and innovation appeared statistically significant; F (6,235) =13.08, p<. 001, b= .20, SE=. 07, t=2.98, p=. 032. This indicates that an employee who differs by one unit on experienced inclusive leadership is estimated to differ by .20 units in their reported innovation. All in all, employees who perceive more inclusive leadership perceive more innovation. Zero fell outside of the 95% confidence interval, ranging from .07 until .34, indicating the significance. These results provide support for the first hypothesis: H1: Inclusive
leadership is positively related to team innovation.
4.2.1 Accountability
In order to test the mediating role of accountability in the inclusive leadership – team innovation relationship, model five of PROCESS was used (Hayes, 2013). The results
can be found in table 2. First, the relationship between leader inclusiveness and accountability is assessed. The insignificant effect, B=0.05, indicates that employees that differ by one unit on experienced inclusive leadership, are estimated to differ by 0.05 units on accountability. Specifically, zero fell inside the 95% confidence interval ranging from -.06 to 0.17, indicating their insignificance. Employees who experience their leader to be inclusive do not significantly experience more accountability and therefore, the second hypothesis “H3: Leader inclusiveness is positively related to
employee felt accountability” could not be supported by the data.
Table 2: Results of the PROCESS analysis of the moderation by
Accountability (unstandardized coefficients, N=242).
Consequent
M (Accountability) Y (Innovation)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
X (Inclusive Leadership) .05 .06 .369 .20 .07 .003 M (Accountability) --- --- --- .27 .07 <.001 Constant` 2.60 .45 <.001 ` .82 .54 .13 Autonomy .07 .06 .223 .17` .06 .007 Task dependence .27 .04 <.001 -.03 .05 .620 Team Cohesion -.01 .01 .271 .12 .08 .106 R²=.17 R²=.25 F(5,236)=9.62, p<.001 F(6,235)=13.08, p<.001 Note. PROCESS model 4. Diversity was put as an extra covariate.
On the contrary, the significant effect, B=0,27, tells us that employees who differ by one unit on accountability, are estimated to differ by 0,27 units on team innovation. In this case the zero fell outside of the 95% confidence interval, which
ranged from 0,13 to 0,41 (p<0,005). Employees who experience more
self-accountability, do report higher levels of team innovativeness and therefore the forth hypothesis (H4: Accountability is positively related to team innovation) was
supported by the data.
However, since leader-inclusiveness is not a predictor of accountability, the mediating role of accountability within the inclusive leadership – team innovation relationship was not supported. All in all, although accountability partly explains innovation, felt-accountability does not explain the relationship between leader inclusiveness and innovation.
4.2.2. The moderating role of diversity
In order to test the moderating role of diversity, again model 5 of PROCESS was used. The effect of the interaction of inclusive leadership and diversity, on innovation was not statistically significant (R2=.25), F(7,234)=11.42, p = .29, B=-.14, SE=0.12, t= 1.14, p=.255. (Table 3).
Table 3:. Results of the PROCESS analysis of the moderation by Diversity (N=242).
Y (Innovation)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p
X (Inclusive Leadership) .20 .07 .003
Diversity -.40 .70 .566
Diversity x Inclusive Leadership .14 .12 .255
Constant` .82 .54 .13
R²=.17 F(7,234)=11.42, p<.001 Note. PROCESS model 5 was used.
However, taking a closer look at the conditional effects shows that the effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation only is significant when a team is highly diverse (cross-functional team)(effect=0.28, SE=.10, CL:.09 to .47), but not significant when a team is low in diversity (non cross-functional team)(effect=0.139, SE=.09, CL:-.03 to .31)(Table 4.). This suggests that a team is more innovative when a team is highly diverse than when a team is low in diversity, but the difference between low and high diversity teams does not differ significantly.
In sum, the results from the moderated mediation analysis indicate that the total indirect effect (interaction between inclusive leadership and diversity on innovation) was not significant. Therefore, hypothesis 2 could was not supported by the data (H2: Professional diversity moderates the relationship between inclusive
leadership and team adaptability, such that the relationship is positive for high levels of professional diversity and non-significant for low levels of professional diversity).
Table 4: Results of the PROCESS analysis of the conditional effects of diversity (N=242).
Y (Innovation)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p
X (Inclusive Leadership) .20 .07 .003 Diversity high x Inclusive leadership .28 .10 .004 Diversity Low x Inclusive Leadership .14 .09 .113
Constant` 1.15 .61 .061
R²=.25 F(7,234)=11.42, p<.001 Note. PROCESS model 5 was used.
4.2.3 Additional analysis – Autonomy
Previously, the mediating role of accountability was investigated, in which higher values of reported inclusive leadership did not lead to higher levels of reported accountability within employees. In order to check if the relationship between
inclusive leadership and accountability was stronger in relation with autonomy, a closer inspection of the conditional effects was taken.
First of all, the interaction between inclusive leadership and autonomy on accountability, appeared significant (effect=.10, SE=.04, LC:.02 to .17). With one unit increase in inclusive leadership, the difference between high and low autonomy in experienced accountability is .10 units. As zero fell outside 95% confidence interval ranging from .12 to .17, the significance was confirmed. This implies the interaction is significant which implies that autonomy moderates the relationship between inclusive leadership and accountability.
Table 5 : Results of the moderated mediation analysis using PROCESS
(unstandardized coefficients, N=242)
Consequent
M (Accountability) Y (Innovation)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
X (Inclusive Leadership) -.40 .20 .045 .26 .07 .001 M (Accountability) --- --- --- .27 .07 <.001 Autonomy -.45 .22 .044 --- --- --- IL x Autonomy .10 .04 .017 --- --- --- Constant` 2.60 .45 <.001 ` .82 .54 .13 R²=.17 R²=.23 F(5,236)=9.62, p<.001 F(6,235)=13.08, p<.001 Note. Process model 7. Covariates: Task dependency, Team cohesion, Diversity
Figure 2: Graphical view of the simple slopes analysis
Note. “2-way unstandardized regression interaction effects” excel worksheet was used from www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.thm.
Subsequently, after finding the moderation of autonomy between inclusive leadership and accountability a simple slope analysis was conducted to check whether these simple slopes differ significantly from zero. Thus, investigating the relationship between inclusive leadership and accountability with the presence of autonomy. In the following figure, two lines appear (Figure 2). The horizontal line represents the relationship between inclusive leadership and accountability when autonomy is low (1 standard deviation below average), and the upward slope represents the relationship between inclusive leadership and accountability when autonomy is high (1 standard deviation above average). The results show that the relationship between inclusive leadership and accountability was insignificant with the presence of low autonomy (b1=.04, t=.52, p=.67). When the employees experienced high levels of autonomy, the relationship between inclusive leadership and accountability was almost significant (b1=.13, t=1.83, p=.068) and fully significant when autonomy was extremely high
2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Low Inclusive leadership High Inclusive leadership
A cc oum ta bi li ty Low Autonomy High Autonomy
Table 6: Results of simple slopes analysis of the relationship between inclusive
leadership on accountability on different values of autonomy (N=248).
Accountability
Antecedent Slope/ b1 t p
Autonomy Low x Inclusive leadership (- 1 sd) -.04 -0.52 .607 Autonomy High x Inclusive Leadership (+1 sd) .13 1.83 .068 Autonomy extra High x Inclusive leadership (+2 sd) .21 2.33 .020
Note. “2-way unstandardized with simple slopes” excel worksheet was used from www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.thm.
More interestingly, the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation, appears significant only within individuals who experience high autonomy (effect=0.052, SE=.029, CL:.007 to .123), comparing to the group who experience low autonomy (effect=-.003, SE=.019 CL:-.043 to .034). In other words, employees who experience extremely high levels of autonomy when their leader is being perceived as inclusive, perceive higher levels of accountability. Higher amounts of reported accountability seem to relate to higher levels of reported innovation within the team. Thus, when autonomy is taken into account as a moderating mediator, the total indirect effect inclusive leadership on innovation though accountability,
appeared significant (effect=.03, SE=.02, CL:.01 to .07). Results can be found in the table below (table 7).
All in all, with very high levels of autonomy, the third hypothesis “H3: Leader
inclusiveness is positively related to employee felt accountability” will be supported
Table 7: Results of PROCESS analysis of the conditional indirect effects of inclusive
leadership on innovation at different values of autonomy. (N=242)
Y (accountability)
Antecedent Coeff. SE LLCI ULCI
X (Inclusive Leadership) .26 .07 .13 .39 Autonomy low x Inclusive leadership -.003 .02 -.04 0.04 Autonomy high x Inclusive Leadership .05 .03 .01 .12
Note. PROCESS model 7 was used with diversity added as an extra covariate.
5.1 Discussion
In this day and age, innovation has become a top priority among organizations. They need to cope with rapidly changing environments and competitive pressures drive the demand to stay ahead. Innovation, however, is predicted by a wide array of individual and organizational factors, which in turn has implications for managers to shape and create an innovative workforce (Unsworth & Parker, 2003). Also, companies become more and more diverse and employees are held increasingly accountable for their work (Hall et al., 2009). All in all, inclusive leadership, diversity and accountability within organizations seem to be essential in dealing effectively with today’s business world and to sustain and create a
competitive advantage.
This study tries to contribute to our current knowledge in three ways. Firstly, by adding to the literature on leadership and innovation, and more specifically by zooming in on a specific form of relational leadership, namely; inclusive leadership. Secondly, by examining the role of diversity as a moderator within this relationship. And lastly, by researching accountability as the potential mediating mechanism though which inclusive leadership facilitates innovation. By using a sample of 242
employees working in a wide range of organizations and occupations, the previously mentioned expected relationships were investigated.
In line with the expectations, the analysis revealed that when an employee perceives their leader to be inclusive, this positively influences the amount of
perceived innovation within the team. According to theory, this is because of leaders being open, available and accessible in their interaction with followers and due to their constant stimulation of employees to contribute in decisions and discussions (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv, 2010; Membhard & Edmondson, 2005). By this, employees feel safe to speak up, offer ideas and raise concerns which allow the people most likely to detect changes in the environment to response quickly and proactively (Moss & Sims, 2016).
Contrary to the expectations, team-diversity was not found to be a moderator, and accountability was not found to be a mediator in the relation between inclusive leadership and innovation. Interestingly, while diving deeper into these relationships, thought provoking results were found. Firstly, although diversity was not a significant moderator in the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation, the
differences between a groups being highly diverse and groups being low in diversity show us a difference in line with the expectations. When a group operates cross functionally and is thus, highly diverse, there is a significant relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation.
Controversially, when a group does not operate cross-functionally, and it is thus assumed to be lower in diversity, this relationship is not significant. This is in line with research of Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon and Ziv (2010) and Shore et al (2011), stating that inclusive leaders can enhance performance, particularly in diverse groups. They do this by integrating different perspectives within diverse team members and
stimulating and appreciating everyone’s contributions (Shore et al., 2011). As a function of this behavior, diverse viewpoints from its different team members and the input from minority groups can be expected which subsequently, will be integrated by the leader (Membhard & Edmondson, 2006).
However, an explanation for this non-significant finding can be found in the operationalization of the diversity construct. Diversity was measured by one question regarding the cross-functional nature of the team. When a team is cross-functional, diversity is assured as the team exists of a group of people with different functional expertise (Randel & Jaussi, 2003). However, when a team is not cross-functional, this is no guarantee the group is not diverse. Therefore, the moderating strength of
diversity within this study could be weaker than it would be in reality. Therefore, future research should conceptualize diversity more elaborately. More specifications will be given in the “future research” section.
Secondly, the mediating role of accountability was not confirmed within this study. Extracted from theory, accountability is all about holding people answerable for their actions which form the basis for shared expectations and the maintenance for any type of social system (Tetlock, 1992). Although accountability was not found to be a significant mediation, we found a very high effect of accountability on
innovation. This finding outlines the importance of accountability in innovation research, and should be taking into account when dealing with innovation within organizations.
Furthermore, due to high interrelation of autonomy with the main variables, diving deeper into this interrelatedness seemed warranted. As a result, autonomy was found to be a moderator in the relation between leader inclusiveness and
and experience their leaders to be inclusive, employees experience higher levels of accountability. In turn, accountability engenders team innovation. All in all, when adding high levels of autonomy to the model as a moderator, accountability was a mediator of the relationship between leader inclusiveness and innovation.
Figure 2. Research model of the mediation including autonomy
In order to explain how inclusive leadership influences accountability, with the presence of autonomy among employees, the following explanation is
constructed. Some more philosophical research done on the topic of autonomy and accountability, found that accountability actually works best hand in hand with autonomy (Oshana, 2001). A leader usually only tends to hold an employee accountable, as he or she has belief in their ability to operate autonomously on a certain task (Seibert et al., 2004). Simply said: for the effective exertion of
accountability, an individual needs autonomy (Oshana, 2001). Now place yourself in the shoes of a subordinate and imagine the following; when would you feel most accountable? When your leader holds you responsible for the successful finalization of a marketing project and tells you exactly which steps to take, or 2) when your leader holds you responsible for the successful finalization of a marketing project and tells you to have all the freedom to make it a success. It could be argued that the more Leader Inclusiveness Team Innovation Felt Accountabilit y Employee Autonomy
autonomy an individual experiences to construct their means, the more accountable it feels to do it well since the results lie in their own hands.
All in all, inclusive leaders only stimulate innovation through accountability, as employees will be given the high levels of autonomy, which is an important contribution to our current knowledge on the inclusive leadership construct.
5.2 Research contributions
This research addresses the need for further attention to the role of inclusive leadership in work organizations. Inclusive leadership refers to leaders who exhibit openness, accessibility and availability in their interaction with followers (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv, 2010). These three assets were measured by nine items of the inclusive leadership scale developed by Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon and Ziv (2010). However, while studying the concept of inclusive leadership, centralized decision-making seems to play an important role within this leadership style. Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon and Ziv (2010) did not take this into account and therefore three decision-making items out of the scale of Ahearne, Mathieu and Rapp (2005) were added to the leader inclusiveness scale within this study. Since it has never been studied in this combination before, this research gives a more complete picture of the inclusive leadership construct and adds to the current knowledge on the topic.
Furthermore, the results of this study extend to our understanding of
innovation in the workplace. Carmeli, Reiter- Palmon and Ziv (2010) already found a positive relation between inclusive leadership, and psychological safety, which, in turn, engenders employee involvement in creative work. However, creativity is described as the production of useful and novel ideas (Amabile, 1988), while innovation is the implementation of creative ideas (Bechtold, De Dreu, Nijstad &
Choi, 2010). Thus, this research adds to the current knowledge of the influence of inclusive leadership on performance, telling us it increases innovation.
Although the moderation was not significant, this research has shown that the relationship between inclusive leadership on innovation was significant when teams were highly diverse. This relation was not significant when teams were low in
diversity. This is in line with the Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon & Ziv (2010) and Shore and colleagues (2011), telling us inclusive leadership is a determinant for performance, particularly in diverse groups.
More interestingly, our study sheds light on the role of accountability in enhancing innovation. This study has found that accountability was a mediator of the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovation, only when autonomy was added as a moderator between inclusive leadership and accountability. This partly satisfied the call of Grant & Ashford (2008), who encourages further attention to the relationship between autonomy and accountability. Also, this speaks against several theories, stating accountability and autonomy are two opposing constructs (Byron & Khazanchi, 2012; Deci & Ryan, 1987). The findings of this study suggest that
employees feel more personally accountable for their individual performance and the success of their organization, without traditional management focused on controlling employees. This in in line whit LeBow and Spitzer (2002), arguing that gaining a higher sense of self-worth and autonomy among employees, will give rise to personal accountability. Future research should give further attention to these two constructs; accountability and autonomy.
5.3 limitations and future research directions
Like any other study, this study has a number of limitations, which give inspiration for further research. Within this study, all data was collected from a single source, using self-reports (the employee)(Podsakoff, Mackenie, Podsakoff & lee, 2003). This common method bias may have resulted in inflated relationships between the
variables (Choi, Tran & Park, 2015). However, there is amazingly little evidence available to support the possibility of the common method bias as universal inflator of correlations (Spector, 2006; Spector & Branninck, 1995). Also, especially
overlapping constructs seem to suffer from the common method bias (Spector & Brannick, 2009). Since the constructs within this study do not seem to have particular overlap, the inflation of the results due to common method bias could be doubted. However, in order to be sure it is recommended to replicate the current study while collecting data from several sources. More specifically, it is recommended to use different sources for the dependent and the independent variable (Spector &
Brannick, 2009). Within this study innovation should be measured though the leader in future research.
Furthermore, as already mentioned in the previous section, diversity was measured by a dichotomous variable (in which there are only two possible outcomes) regarding the cross functional nature of teams. A cross-functional team is a guarantee in functional background and expertise within a team. It may include people from finance, marketing, operations, and human resource departments. Controversially, being a non-cross functional team does not necessarily implies a team to be low in diversity. Therefore, only measuring diversity on the basis of its cross functionality, could oversimplify the construct and weaken the moderating strength of diversity. Also, the current research only focused on diversity in terms of functional expertise,
