INTRODUCTION
Today’s dynamic and turbulent business environment has made it challenging for organizations to survive and flourish (Lauser, Reference Lauser2010; Battistelli, Montani, Odoardi, Vadenbeghe, & Picci, Reference Battistelli, Montani, Odoardi, Vandenberghe and Picci2014; Chowhan, Pries, & Mann, 2016). In such an environment, in order to be successful, it has become more essential for organizations to focus on innovation. Innovation is an important factor for aligning technological changes and business models in challenging environments (Božic & Ozretic-Došen, Reference De Jong, Parker, Wennekers and Wu2015; Wan, Williamson, & Yin, Reference Wan, Williamson and Yin2015; Sanchez-Famoso, Maseda, & Iturralde, in Reference Sanchez-Famoso, Maseda and Iturraldepress). Innovation comes about when an employee develops, promotes, and implements new ideas which are key components of employees’ innovative work behavior (IWB) (Janssen, Reference Janssen2000). Research has shown that the IWB is of significant importance in work settings (De Jong, Parker, Wennekers, & Wu, Reference Hollander2011). IWB can be considered as employees’ extra role behavior and is exhibited in a dynamic work environment. It can therefore help an organization to meet new challenges in a complex environment (Scott & Bruce, Reference Scott and Bruce1998).
For decades, researchers have studied antecedents of IWB at organization, work group, and individual levels (Scott & Bruce, Reference Scott and Bruce1994; Anderson & West, Reference Baer and Frese1998; Janssen, Reference Janssen2000; Baer & Frese, Reference Birdi, Leach and Magadley2003; Anderson, Dreu, & Nijstad, Reference Anderson, De Dreu and Nijstad2004; Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall, & Zhao, Reference Raub and Robert2011; Zlatanović & Mulej, Reference Zlatanović and Mulej2015; Franco & Haase, Reference Franco and Haase2016). These researchers asserted that leadership, work group, work climate, individual differences, job characteristics and job demand, personality and values, are significantly associated with the IWB. Among all these predictors of IWB, leadership plays a prominent role on employees’ IWB. For instance, Gerybadze, Hommel, Reiners, and Thomaschewski (Reference Nishii and Mayer2010) stated that leaders’ role as supportive behavior is much more important than most explanatory factors for employees’ IWB.
Researchers have therefore investigated the issue of why leadership support plays such a critical role for IWB and have further identified that such support is important due to the complex nature of IWB. The high risks involved with IWB indicate that it is some sort of nonroutine behavior where employees avoid traditional thinking and are able to speak about new ideas (Kanter, Reference Kanter1988; Kessel, Hannemann-Weber, & Kratzer, Reference Kessel, Hannemann-Weber and Kratzer2012). This shows that employees challenge the status quo in disagreeing with superiors; therefore employees need a high degree of autonomy to promote IWB (Janssen, Reference Janssen2005). Autonomy and freedom to express ideas arise when employees are supported by leadership (Foss, Woll, & Moilanen, Reference Miceli, Near and Dworkin2013). Numerous studies support that leadership plays a noteworthy role to enhance employees’ IWB (Raub & Robert, Reference Raub and Robert2010; Martens, Reference Martens2011; Aryee, Walumbwa, Zhou, & Hartnell, Reference Basu and Green2012; Resick, Hargis, Shao, & Dust, Reference Resick, Hargis, Shao and Dust2013; Tu & Lu, Reference Tu and Lu2013; Javed, Bashir, Rawwas, & Arjoon, Reference Javed, Bashir, Rawwas and Arjoon2016: 16).
One of the unique ways by which leaders support employees’ IWB is the quality relation with employees. In strong and quality-based relation, leaders provide support to employees with challenging tasks. In uncertain and risky situations, recognize employees’ efforts, and provide the necessary task-related resources which significantly result in employees’ IWB (De Jong & Den Hartog, Reference Hu and Bentler2007). To contribute to the existing body of knowledge, the current study investigates how relational leadership (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2004, Reference March, Herman and Ashkanasy2007; Uhl-Bien, Reference Uhl-Bien2006; Carmeli, Ben-Hador, Waldman, & Rupp, 2009) effectively promotes IWB. More specifically, we emphasize on a unique mode of relational leadership which is known as inclusive leadership (IL), since there has been very limited attention on the relationship between IL and IWB.
Nembhard and Edmondson defined IL as ‘words and deeds by a leader or leaders that indicate an invitation and appreciation for others’ contributions’ (Reference Nembhard and Edmondson2006: 947). Inclusive leaders permit employees to make sure the employees’ access in decision-making and in every step of activities demonstrates their availability to employees (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010), therefore they support employees to generate new and novel ideas (Sharifirad & Ataei, Reference Sharifirad and Ataei2012). Generating new ideas is the first stage of IWB (Basadur, Reference Carmeli, Ben-Hador, Waldman and Rupp2004). Inclusive leaders ensure that employees have entrance to important organizational resources, both tangible as well as intangible (Hollander, Reference Ryan2009), that facilitates employees to further promote and implement new ideas (Scott & Bruce, Reference Scott and Bruce1994; Basu & Green, Reference Carmeli, Dutton and Hardin1997; Afsar, Badir, & Saeed, Reference Altunoğlu and Gürel2014). Therefore, it appears that IL enhances employees’ IWB.
Since IWB is a nonroutine behavior which typically avoids traditional methods in approaching work, explores, and implements new work means, therefore employees need psychological safety (PS) to advance the innovation processes (Edmondson & Lei, Reference Kline2014). PS describes the perception that ‘people are comfortable being themselves’ (Edmondson, Reference Kaufman1999: 354), and ‘feel able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status or career’ (Kahn, Reference Kahn1990: 708). IL promotes employees’ views and opinions through self-respect and self-significance (Shamir & Howell, Reference Shamir and Howell2000; Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010). Detert and Burris (2007) stated that when leaders consider the employees by their self-value, then they perceive high levels of PS. Moreover, research has shown that PS increases employees’ IWB (Baer & Frese, Reference Birdi, Leach and Magadley2003; Kessel, Kratzer, & Schultz, Reference Kessel, Kratzer and Schultz2012; Sharifirad, Reference Sharifirad2013). Therefore, we propose that PS mediates the relationship between IL and employees’ IWB (Figure 1).
The hypothesized model
We rely on leader–member exchange theory to explain the effect of IL on IWB. We based our predictions on the tenet that high quality of leader–follower relationship generates more positive outcomes (Basu & Green, Reference Carmeli, Dutton and Hardin1997; Costigan, Insinga, Jason Berman, Ilter, Kranas, & Kureshov, Reference Costigan, Insinga, Jason Berman, Ilter, Kranas and Kureshov2006). Moreover, in a high-quality relationship with leaders, employees experience high PS for generating, promoting, and implementing novel ideas (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, Reference Ilies, Nahrgang and Morgeson2007; Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010; Volmer, Spurk, & Niessen, Reference Volmer, Spurk and Niessen2012). We therefore investigate the direct effect of IL on IWB, and how PS might play a role in this relationship. Conducting this study in a non-Western country context is also a unique approach since previous studies on IWB are mostly set in Western countries.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
IL and IWB
IL refers to ‘leaders who exhibit visibility, accessibility, and availability in their interactions with followers’ (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010: 250). Leader inclusiveness captures attempts by leaders to include others in discussions and decisions in which their voices and perspectives might otherwise be absent (Edmondson, Kramer, & Cook, Reference Kessel, Kratzer and Schultz2004; Nembhard & Edmondson, Reference Nembhard and Edmondson2006). Thus, employees having access in the decision-making process and discussions, openly speak, promote, and implement new ideas (e.g., IWB) (Dorenbosch, Engen, & Verhagen, Reference Kanfer and Ackerman2005). Therefore, we assert that IL increases employees’ IWB. De Jong defined IWB as ‘individuals’ behaviors directed toward the initiation and intentional introduction of new and useful ideas, processes, products, or procedure within a work role, group or organization’ (Reference Hirak, Peng, Carmeli and Schaubroeck2006: 19). These new ideas are different from traditional ideas that prevail at work setting. Therefore, in the context of innovation, employees need the support of organizational work environment (De Jong & Den Hartog, Reference Janakiraman2010).
Leadership is considered as the key agent of change in organizations and is a strong component of the organizational work environment. Therefore, when leaders show supportive behavior for new ideas, then employees see it as organizational support to enhance their IWB (Amabile, Reference Anderson and Gerbing1996; Scott & Bruce, Reference Scott and Bruce1998; Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, Reference Ashford, Sutcliffe and Christianson2004; De Jong & Den Hartog, Reference Ilies, Nahrgang and Morgeson2008). Leaders who demonstrate the characteristics of IL, promote fairness of input and output to all employees (Hollander, Reference Sanchez-Famoso, Maseda and Iturralde2012). Therefore, in a quality-based relationship with the leader (e.g., IL), employees experience a fair reward system which encourages them to meet job demand like IWB (Basu & Green, Reference Carmeli, Dutton and Hardin1997; Janssen, Reference Janssen2000; Janssen & Van Yperen, Reference Janssen and Van Yperen2004; Reuvers, Engen, Vinkenburg, & Wilson-Evered, Reference Reuvers, Van Engen, Vinkenburg and Wilson‐Evered2008; Sanders, Moorkamp, Torka, Groeneveld, & Groeneveld, Reference Sanders, Moorkamp, Torka, Groeneveld and Groeneveld2010). Inclusive leaders work with people, never to people, and therefore at every step of activities show their availability to employees (Ryan, Reference Ryan2006; Janakiraman, Reference Janakiraman2011) which encourages them to develop, promote, and implement new and useful ideas (Basu & Green, Reference Carmeli, Dutton and Hardin1997; Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010; Sanders et al., Reference Sanders, Moorkamp, Torka, Groeneveld and Groeneveld2010; Altunoğlu & Gürel, Reference Altunoğlu and Gürel2015).
IL generally emphasized on inclusive process where leaders attempt to ensure employees’ participation being attentive to their inputs to improve the work process (Quinn, Haggard, & Ford, Reference Quinns, Haggard and Ford2006). Leaders who demonstrate this behavior, learn, help, and lead the employees (Vaill, Reference Vaill1996), and motivate them to show IWB (Crant, Reference Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall and Zhao2000; Hollander, Reference Ryan2009; Bindl & Parker, Reference Chowhan, Pries and Mann2010; Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart, & Singh, Reference Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart and Singh2011). In the quality relationship with inclusive leaders, employees experience the accessibility attribute of IL. Inclusive leaders with this attribute, give employees access to decide their work activities on their own. Therefore, they experience high empowerment with IL (Nishii & Mayer, Reference Nishii and Mayer2009) that motivate and help them to successfully create useful ideas, promote them to gain acceptance, and implement them for practical benefits (De Spiegelaere, Gyes, & Hootegem, Reference De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes and Hootegem2012; De Spiegelaere, Gyes, Vandekerckhove, & Hootegem, Reference De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes, Vandekerckhove and Hootegem2012; De Spiegelaere, Gyes, Witte, Niesen, & Hootegem, Reference De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes, De Witte, Niesen and Van Hootegem2014).
Inclusive leaders exhibit concerns about the interests, expectations, and feelings of their employees, and are therefore willing to provide assistance (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010; Choi, Tran, & Park, Reference Franco and Haase2015). Specifically, inclusive leaders share their vision of the organizations with employees and incorporate their ideas. Employees therefore feel energized and more committed to leaders, and they are more likely to reciprocate by displaying extra-role behavior (e.g., IWB) (Pless & Maak, Reference Pless and Maak2004; Piccolo, Greebaum, Hartog, & Folger, Reference Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog and Folger2010; Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Goldman, Reference Walumbwa, Cropanzano and Goldman2011; Bilimoria, Reference Choi, Tran and Park2012). Inclusive leaders provide employees with emotional support, increase trustworthiness, and by their behavior, show that they are principled individuals who make unbiased judgments (Nemhard & Edmondson, Reference Nembhard and Edmondson2006; Ryan, Reference Ryan2006; Hollander, Reference Sanchez-Famoso, Maseda and Iturralde2012). Such behavior encourages employees to show IWB (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, Reference Rank, Pace and Frese2009; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, Reference Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes and Salvador2009; Tu & Lu, Reference Tu and Lu2013; Choi, Tran, & Park, Reference Franco and Haase2015). One of the unique ways through which inclusive leaders support employees is that such leaders take responsibility for ultimate results (Hollander, Reference Sanchez-Famoso, Maseda and Iturralde2012) and in the process of innovation, even if new ideas result in failure, they protect employees by assuming responsibility for this failure. Therefore, employees feel comfortable in taking risks associated with IWB in the presence of IL.
Based on leader member exchange theory, researchers have found many reasons for a positive relationship between relational leadership (e.g., IL) and IWB. First, inclusive leaders respect and encourage employees to take difficult and challenging goals, recognize and appreciate their efforts and contribution to achieve those particular goals, and show responsive behavior where leaders respond positively and timely to employees’ problems (Hollander, Reference Sanchez-Famoso, Maseda and Iturralde2012) which further encourage them to show IWB (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, Reference Liden, Sparrowe and Wayne1997; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, Reference Tierney, Farmer and Graen1999; Tierney, Reference Tierney2008; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, Reference Rank, Pace and Frese2009; Hollander, Reference Ryan2009; Yukl & Mahsud, Reference Yukl and Mahsud2010; Aryee et al., Reference Basu and Green2012; Yeh-Yun Lin & Liu, Reference Yeh-Yun Lin and Liu2012).
Second, in a quality relationship with IL, employees experience leadership support in term of beneficial resources like time, space and materials and political support for legitimacy and innovation-related information which lead them to develop, promote, and implement new ideas (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, Reference Ilies, Nahrgang and Morgeson2007; Hollander, Reference Ryan2009; Shore et al., Reference Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart and Singh2011; Liu, Liao, & Loi, Reference Liu, Liao and Loi2012; Choi, Tran, & Park, Reference Franco and Haase2015; Wang, Fang, Qureshi, & Janssen, Reference Wang, Fang, Qureshi and Janssen2015; Piansoongnern, Reference Piansoongnern2016). Finally, inclusive leaders enhance the employees positive feelings and emotions (Hollander, Reference Ryan2009) which motivate them to indulge themselves in their innovative tasks (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010; Yeh-Yun Lin & Liu, Reference Yeh-Yun Lin and Liu2012). Based on aformentioned arguments, we hypothesized as under:
Hypothesis 1: IL is positively related to IWB.
Mediating role of PS between IL and IWB
PS is a state where employees feel that there is safety in taking risks at work setting (Edmondson, Kramer, & Cook, Reference Kessel, Kratzer and Schultz2004) where they face many constraints to speak up openly. For instance, employees need PS in speaking about new work means while disregarding traditional methods of doing the job (Kessel, Hannemann-Weber, & Kratzer, Reference Kessel, Hannemann-Weber and Kratzer2012). In the context of innovation, employees may take risks by proposing new ideas, many of which could lead to organizational failure if implemented. Developing and implementing new ideas can be high risk (Ellen Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, Reference Kriegesmann, Kley and Schwering2012). Gong, Cheung, Wang, and Huang (Reference Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog and Folger2012) noted that generating new ideas does not guarantee the attainment of desired goals since most ideas fail. They also point out that novel ideas may be rejected as being perceived as deviant behavior in the workplace. Employees therefore need a psychologically safe environment for their risk-taking actions inherent to creative endeavors (Kanfer & Ackerman, Reference Kanfer and Ackerman1989; Edmondson, Reference Kaufman1999) and if they perceive safety, then they are more comfortable to voice their opinion (Morrison, Reference Morrison2011).
Employees at the workplace, whenever they speak up, the others (e.g., leaders) labeled them as trouble-makers (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, Reference Miceli, Near and Dworkin2009). This can result in lower support and punishment (e.g., demotion and termination) (Ashford, Sutcliffe, & Christianson, Reference Bilimoria2009). However, intellectual and emotional support from inclusive leaders can help shape and maintain work contexts where employees experience greater PS (Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, Reference Reuvers, Van Engen, Vinkenburg and Wilson‐Evered2012). This motivates them to develop, promote, and implement new ideas (Baer & Frese, Reference Birdi, Leach and Magadley2003; Carmeli, Sheaffer, Binyamin, Reiter‐Palmon, & Shimoni, Reference Fornell and Larcker2014). Therefore, we assume that PS mediates the relationship between IL and IWB. Since, IWB is associated with risky behavior (Janssen, Reference Janssen2002), and if employees do not feel PS, then they protect themselves defensively and refrain to show IWB (Rank, Pace, & Frese, Reference Rank, Pace and Frese2004; Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, Reference De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes, De Witte, Niesen and Van Hootegem2007; Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, Reference Hunter, Bedell and Mumford2007; West & Ricther, Reference West and Richter2008). However, this is not the case when they experience supportive leadership (Roussin, Reference Roussin2008; Kaufman, Reference Kaufman2009; Rasulzada & Dackert, Reference Rasulzada and Dackert2009).
Inclusive leaders who value the inclusion of employees in a particular work process, therefore, give employees a chance to raise their voice for generating, promoting, and implementing useful ideas (Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroek, 2012; Boekhorst, Reference Crant2015). Such inclusive leaders contribute to a culture where employees’ ideas and opinions are highly valued and respected. Inclusive leaders show concern for employees’ feelings as well as expectations. Therefore, in the context of change, employees feel more PS in exhibiting IWB when supervised by supportive, IL (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010; Detert & Edmondson, Reference Jung, Chow and Wu2011). Inclusive leaders exhibit openness attributes in which they communicate the importance of taking innovative actions and giving employees the guarantee that in case of negative consequences they will not be punished so that they experience a greater PS (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, Reference Walumbwa and Schaubroeck2009; Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010; Zhang, Tsui, & Wang, Reference Zhang, Tsui and Wang2011).
Having direct access through accessibility attributes of IL, employees experience nondefensive behavior, and feel high levels of self-worth and self-identity (Shamir, House, & Arthur, Reference Shamir, House and Arthur1993; Edmondson, Kramer, & Cook, Reference Kessel, Kratzer and Schultz2004). Moreover, when inclusive leaders show their availability to discuss new work means and new opportunities, then employees feel that it is safe to speak more openly about new ideas (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010). Inclusive leaders work with employees directly and invite them to contribute their ideas which help them to develop a sense of PS (Nembhard & Edmondson, Reference Nembhard and Edmondson2006). IL is concerned with open communication and building a strong interpersonal relation with employees so that they feel that it is safe to take the innovative risks (Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, Reference Edmondson, Kramer and Cook2009; Shore et al., Reference Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart and Singh2011). Research studies have empirically found the positive relationship between IL and PS (Nembhard & Edmondson, Reference Nembhard and Edmondson2006; Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, Reference Fletcher2010; Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroek, 2015; Yin, Reference Yin2013).
In addition, PS within the concept of IL, motivates employees not only to generate new ideas, but also to promote and implement new ideas in the organization. When employees experience PS, then they openly express themselves without any fear of negative consequences (Edmondson, Reference Kaufman1999, 2004) which enhances their IWB (Rank, Pace, & Frese, Reference Rank, Pace and Frese2004). However, employees who do not experience PS, focus more on defensive orientation and therefore experience lower IWB with corresponding lower PS (Nicholson & West, Reference Nicholson and West1988; West & Richter, Reference West and Richter2008). Studies have also found positive effects of PS for not only idea generation, but also promotion and implementation of newly generated ideas (Kark & Carmeli, Reference Kark and Carmeli2009; Klijn & Tomic, Reference Klijn and Tomic2010; Gong et al., Reference Piccolo, Greenbaum, Hartog and Folger2012; Kessel, Kratzer, & Schultz, Reference Kessel, Kratzer and Schultz2012; Sharifirad, Reference Sharifirad2013). The above arguments show IL indirectly increases IWB through PS. We therefore hypothesize as under:
Hypothesis 2: PS mediates the relationship between IL and IWB.
METHODOLOGY
Sample and procedure
The data were collected under a research program that aimed to look into the effect of IL on IWB with the mediating role of PS in employees in the Textile Industry in Pakistan. The reason for the selection of this population of interest is that, at the current time, the changing and complex business environment is pressurizing the companies in this industry to innovatively respond the market (McAdam & McClelland, Reference McAdam and McClelland2002; Montani, Battistelli, & Odoardi, Reference Montani, Battistelli and Odoardi2015). These changes are due to the number of factors including globalization, technological growth, and hypercompetitive markets (Xerri, Bruneto, & Shacklock, Reference Xerri, Brunetto and Shacklock2009). These factors have made it a challenge for employees to adapt to new changes which are realistically possible through IWB (Menzel, Aaltio, & Ulijn, Reference Menzel, Aaltio and Ulijn2007; Oukes, Reference Oukes2010; Imran & Anis-Ul-Haque, Reference Imran and Anis-ul-Haque2011). IWB therefore helps organizations to achieve a competitive advantage (Carmeli, Meitar, & Weisberg, 2006).
Employees of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) of Textile Industry were selected since SMEs has had a high focus on capitalizing employees’ capability to create and implement new ideas to improve product quality (Ghobadian & Gallear, Reference Pan, Sun and Chow1997; Cagliano, Blackmon, & Voss, Reference Detert and Edmondson2001; McAdam & McClelland, Reference McAdam and McClelland2002; Enkel & Gassmann, Reference Liden, Sparrowe and Wayne2010; Hotho & Champion, Reference Hotho and Champion2011; Brunswicker & Vanhaverbeke, Reference De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes and Hootegem2015; Love & Roper, Reference Love and Roper2015). Moreover, while showing IWB, employees go beyond the defined concrete paths; therefore IWB is highly complex and ambiguous in nature (Kriegesmann, Kley, & Schwering, Reference Kriegesmann, Kley and Schwering2007). Employees show IWB only when they are supported and rewarded (Clegg, Unsworth, Epitropaki, & Parker, Reference Ghobadian and Gallear2002; Janssen, Reference Janssen2005). In the context of SMEs of the Textile Industry, McAdam and McClelland (Reference McAdam and McClelland2002) stated that innovation enhancing values help employees of SMEs to innovatively meet the changing needs of customers. Therefore, in order to successfully meet the new changes through employees’ IWB, leaders of SMEs, instead of nepotism and autocratic control, emphasize innovative supportive values including empowering employees with effective interpersonal communication in order to innovate new ideas (Ghobadian & Gallear, Reference Pan, Sun and Chow1997; Mosey, Clare, & Woodcock, Reference Mosey, Clare and Woodcock2002; McAdam, McConvery, & Armstrong, Reference McAdam, McConvery and Armstrong2004; Zhou, Yim, & Tse, Reference Zhou, Yim and Tse2005; Bailey, Bellandi, Caloffi, & Propris, Reference Bailey, Bellandi, Caloffi and De Propris2010; Taştan & Güçel, Reference Taştan and Güçel2014).
In order to recruit participants, and to control for social desirability bias (i.e., the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others), the following procedure was pursued. The lead author contacted the human resource development directors of 20 textile organizations and explained to them the purpose of the research and related data collection. They were also informed that the data will be collected from both employees and their supervisors. During these face-to-face meetings, the lead author offered them a cover letter indicating that participation is voluntary and responses are confidential. The cover letter indicated that the lead author did not know any of the subjects and to ensure that they read the instructions and statement of confidentiality accompanied with the questionnaire stating that ‘Please take several minutes to complete the enclosed questionnaire. There are no rights or wrong answers to these questions, so your candor is strongly encouraged. All responses are strictly anonymous and will be only reported in aggregate. Moreover, the researcher has no means whatsoever to identify any of the respondents. Please also remember that participation in filling up this questionnaire is voluntary.’ After understanding the purpose of research, the directors carefully read the cover letter and gave approval for data collection in their particular firms. A list of potential respondents and their direct supervisors, belonging to different departments, was obtained from Human Resource directors.
Accordingly, the lead author approached a randomized sample of employees of the participating organizations and asked them to complete a questionnaire containing items relating to their perceptions of IL and PS. We also collected data on certain subordinate demographics which were placed in the last part of the survey form. We made sure to randomly select one subordinate for each supervisor. The lead author supplied all respondents with unmarked envelopes and instructed them to place their completed questionnaires in the envelope and deposit them in a sealed box that was also supplied by the author. The box was left in the main lobby or employees’ cafeteria. Data were collected from only those employees who were directly involved in the idea generation, promotion, and implementation stages in their respective innovative jobs which included departments of engineering, designing, marketing, processing, and manufacturing. Researchers have found that employees’ IWB is more relevant in these departments (Morhart, Herzog, & Tomczak, Reference Morhart, Herzog and Tomczak2009; Mukherjee & Ray, Reference Mukherjee and Ray2009; Oukes, Reference Oukes2010; Imran & Anis-ul-Haque, Reference Imran and Anis-ul-Haque2011; Volmer, Spurk, & Niessen, Reference Volmer, Spurk and Niessen2012; Montani, Battistelli, & Odoardi, Reference Montani, Battistelli and Odoardi2015; Birdi, Leach, & Magadley, 2016). Therefore, employees who worked in these SMEs departments are more likely to have innovation via IWB and therefore a higher level of education.
After 2 weeks, the lead author visited the various locations and collected the boxes without any interaction with the workers. After this initial period (time one) when data were collected from employees, after about a month (time two), the questionnaires were distributed to direct supervisors of the participating employees. The supervisor’s survey contained items on employees’ IWB. Data collection over the two periods was conducted in order to reduce the effects of common method bias due to data collection at one time only (Lindell & Whitney, Reference Lindell and Whitney2001; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003).
Both the line manager and subordinate surveys were appropriately coded so that they could be matched and line manager–subordinate dyads formed. Both survey instruments were complemented with a cover letter which highlighted the academic research objectives of the study and assured the confidentiality and anonymity of participants. After discarding the incomplete dyads, our final sample contained a total of 180 subordinate responses out of 250 surveys (a 72% response rate) and corresponding 180 line manager responses. Such a high response rate is common in hand-delivered studies conducted in Asian contexts (Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, Reference Raja, Johns and Ntalianis2004; Abbas, Raja, Darr, & Bouckenooghe, Reference Afsar, F. Badir and Bin Saeed2014; Khan, Moss, Quratulain, & Hameed, in Reference Khan, Moss, Quratulain and Hameedpress). The sample characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Demographic profile of respondents
Measures
Survey questionnaires were administered in English. All items measured in the survey were anchored to a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1=‘strongly disagree,’ to 5=‘strongly agree,’ except for IWB which, while also anchored on a 5-point scale, used different labels (e.g., from 1=‘never,’ to 5=‘always’).
IL
We used 9 items from Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, and Ziv (Reference Fletcher2010) study to assess the three dimensions of inclusive leaders: openness, availability, and accessibility. The employees were asked to rate these items for their direct supervisors. Sample items include ‘The manager is open to hearing new ideas’ (openness), ‘The manager encourages me to access him/her on emerging issues’ (accessibility), and ‘The manager is ready to listen to my requests’ (availability). α reliability of this scale was 0.82.
PS
We used 5-items instrument from Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, and Ziv (Reference Fletcher2010) study to measure PS. The items included: ‘I am able to bring up problems and tough issues,’ ‘People in this organization sometimes reject others for being different,’ ‘I am able to bring up problems and tough issues,’ ‘It is safe to take a risk in this organization,’ ‘It is easy for me to ask other members of this organization for help,’ and ‘No one in this organization would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts’ α reliability of this scale was 0.73.
IWB
We used a 9-item scale from the study of Janssen (Reference Janssen2000) based on Scott and Bruce’s (Reference Scott and Bruce1994) for individual innovative behavior in the workplace. Sample items included: ‘Creating new ideas for difficult issues’ (idea generation), ‘Acquiring approval for innovative ideas’ (idea promotion), and ‘Transforming innovative ideas into useful applications’ (idea realization). α reliability of this scale was 0.83.
Control variables
Following the precedent of previous studies, we controlled for several factors that have been shown to be related to our study variables (Scott & Bruce, Reference Scott and Bruce1994; Janssen, Reference Janssen2000; Jung, Chow, & Wu, Reference Jung, Chow and Wu2003; Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, Reference Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers and Stam2010; Tu & Lu, Reference Tu and Lu2013; Afsar, Badir, & Bin Saeed, Reference Altunoğlu and Gürel2014; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Fang, Qureshi and Janssen2015). We used education (F=2.82, p<.05) and tenure (F=2.84, p<.05) as control variables due to their significant differences in IWB across different categories. Moreover, we collected data from 20 organizations, therefore we used one-way analysis of variance to test whether IWB differ across organizational level. Results of one-way analysis of variance (F=0.06, p>.05) revealed that organizational level is not a control variable.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Measurement model
Correlations among the study variables are shown in Table 2. Structural equation modeling using LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, Reference Jöreskog and Sörbom2006) was used to run the confirmatory factor analysis. The measurement model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) consisted of three latent variables: IL, PS, and IWB. We used a combination of different fit indices to assess the model fit. Specifically, we looked at model χ2, normed fit index, nonnormed fit index, root mean square error of approximation, and comparative fit index. Insignificant χ2 value shows a good model fit, for comparative fit index, normed fit index, nonnormed fit index, with values 0.95 and above being considered as a good fit (Hu & Bentler, Reference Hu and Bentler1999; Kline, Reference Kline2005), while the value of root mean square error of approximation was below 0.05 indicating a good model fit (Kline, Reference Kline2005). The measurement model provided an excellent fit to the data: χ² (62)=60.70, p>.05; normed fit index=0.91; nonnormed fit index=0.94; comparative fit index=0.95; root mean square error of approximation=0.05 (Table 3). These confirmatory factor analyses results showed that three-factor model had satisfactory discriminant validity. Moreover, all the items loaded significantly on their respective latent factors, with factor loadings ranging from 0.62 to 0.95.
Means, standard deviations, coefficient α reliabilities, and intercorrelations
Note. N=180; *p<.05 and **p<.01. Correlation is significant at 0.01 levels (two-tailed); correlation is significant at 0.05 levels (two-tailed); α reliabilities are given in parentheses.
Measurement model
CFI=comparative fit index; NFI=normed fit index; NNFI=nonnormed fit index; RMSEA=root mean square error of approximation.
Composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE)
Composite reliability and AVE were used to indicate convergent and discriminant validities (Fornell, & Larcker, Reference McAdam, McConvery and Armstrong1981). According to Bagozzi and Yi (Reference Boekhorst1988), if the value of composite reliability is >0.6 and the value of AVE is >0.5, then convergent validity is established. Results presented in Table 4 showed that the composite reliabilities of the three latent variables (IL, PS, and IWB) ranged from 0.70 to 0.90, while the AVE by these constructs ranged from 0.52 to 0.80. This evidence indicates that our focal constructs possessed adequate convergent validity. Furthermore, Fornell and Larcker (Reference McAdam, McConvery and Armstrong1981) suggest that discriminant validity is considered sufficient if the square root of the AVE from the construct is greater than the correlation shared between the construct and other constructs in the model. Table 4 shows that the square root of the AVE of each construct is greater than the levels of correlations involving that construct, therefore confirming discriminant validity.
Correlations among latent variables, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE)
Note. Diagonal elements (in bold) are the square root of the AVE.
Off-diagonal elements are the squared correlations among latent variables.
Tests of hypotheses
With acceptable convergent and discriminant validities established, the hypothesized model was then tested. We used two control variables (education and tenure) in the analyses while testing for Hypotheses 1 and 2. The results are displayed in Table 5 and Table 6. Hypothesis1 stated that IL is positively related to IWB. Results supported this relationship as indicated by the regression coefficient and associated significance level (β=0.30, p<.001). Hypothesis 2 stated that PS mediates the relationship between IL and IWB. Three conditions need to be fulfilled, in order to support the Hypothesis 2. First, IL should be positively related with IWB; second, IL should be positively related with PS; third, when we regress IWB on both IL and PS, the PS should be positively related with IWB and previously significant relationship between IL and IWB should turn insignificant. Our results demonstrated that IL was positively related with IWB (β=0.30, p<.001), IL was positively related with PS (β=0.40, p<.001). When IWB was regressed on both IL and PS, the previous regression coefficient between IL and IWB reduced in size (β=0.22, p<.001). This showed that PS partially mediates the relationship between IL and IWB (CI values between 0.10 and 0.26). Hence Hypothesis 2 was partially supported.
Path coefficients in the baseline model
Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
Results on the mediating roles of psychological safety with inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior
Note. BC= bias corrected, 1,000-bootstrap samples; CI=confidence interval.
DISCUSSION
We draw on leader–member exchange theory to develop and test a model which explicates that how IL is related to IWB. Our study hypothesized and tested the direct relationship between IL and IWB, and the indirect relationship these two constructs via PS. Specifically, we argued that employees divulge themselves in the innovative activities when they experience a quality relationship with leaders (Graen & Scandura, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff1987). We also argued that quality relationship between leader and employees motivate employees to independently take risks through, not only generating new ideas, but also promoting and implementing new ideas (Basu & Green, Reference Carmeli, Dutton and Hardin1997; Janssen & Van Yperen, Reference Janssen and Van Yperen2004). This risk-taking motivation on the part of employees come when they perceive PS, that is, their environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.
We found full support for the direct relationship hypothesis. However, we found partial support for the indirect effect hypothesis. The partial mediation suggests the possibility of other factors/variables between IL and IWB (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, Reference Zhao, Lynch and Chen2010). There are few possible explanations for this partial effect which we outline below. First, conceptually and intuitively we based our explanation on the fact that PS shapes the employees’ inner positive feelings, and they show interest in their work activities and therefore they indulge their selves in the trial and error process of innovation (Wooderman, Sawyer, & Griffin, Reference Woodman, Sawyer and Griffin1993; Fuller, Marler, & Hester, Reference Mosey, Clare and Woodcock2006). However, we did not measure this process feature of IWB, extant research suggests that PS motivates employees toward creative process engagement – extent to which employees engage in the problem-identification, information-searching, and ideas generation activities (Zhang & Bartol, Reference Zhang and Bartol2010). Zhou and Pan (Reference Zhou and Pan2015) demonstrated that creative process engagement mediates the relationship between PS and creativity. Second, from social-exchange perspective IL provides certain socioeconomic outcomes to employees in the form of openness, accessibility, and availability. Employees tend to reciprocate in the form of work engagement – a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, Reference Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá and Bakker2002). And more engaged employees are shown to be high on organizational commitment and creative performance (Choi, Tran, & Park, Reference Franco and Haase2015). Third, recent meta-analytic findings (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, Reference Seibert, Wang and Courtright2011) suggest empowerment is an important antecedent for workplace innovation as it enhances ‘the ability of employees to implement their ideas and suggestions for change, resulting in greater innovation at work’ (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, Reference Seibert, Wang and Courtright2011: 986). As IL gives more autonomy to employees, hence it is logical to assume that empowerment might act another potential mediator between IL and IWB. Below we highlight the theoretical implications of our findings.
Theoretical implications
Our investigation contributes to the IWB literature in several important ways. While the direct effect of IL on creativity has been studied, however, the direct relationship between IL and IWB is a new contribution to the literature. This supports the notion that situational factors are important in fostering IWB (Tett & Gutterman, Reference Tett and Guterman2000). Our findings suggest that IL is a favorable situational element which nurtures IWB. These findings are in congruence with existing findings on other leadership styles like transformational leadership and IWB (Afsar, Badir, & Bin Saeed, Reference Altunoğlu and Gürel2014; March, Herman, & Ashkanasy, Reference March, Herman and Ashkanasy2015). We can infer that IL also promotes IWB by focusing on both the characteristics of a leader and leader–followers relationship (exchange) (Hollander, Reference Ryan2009; Yin, Reference Yin2013).
In addition, while the indirect effect of IL on creativity through PS has also been confirmed, albeit partially. The indirect effect of IL on the IWB through PS is a further contribution to the literature on IWB. By illuminating the role of IL as a form of relational leadership, this study adds to our understanding of the nature of leadership processes that contribute to employees’ IWB. These results support the process view of leadership by showing that IL behaviors can shape the individual employee’s perceptions about the organizational context in a way which is conducive to IWB. Our approach is inline with some existing studies which advance the notion that in the process view, leadership influence IWB through individual level factors like intrinsic motivation and psychological empowerment (Tu & Lu, Reference Tu and Lu2013; Afsar, Badir, & Bin Saeed, Reference Altunoğlu and Gürel2014). Our findings elucidate another individual level path between IL and IWB by demonstrating the mediating role of PS, albeit partial.
Specifically, our study indicates that inclusiveness is key in providing leadership support for IWB, because it cultivates high-quality relationships that further augment a sense of PS. The latter is a vital social psychological mechanism which creates conditions where individuals feel safe to bring up ideas, voice opinions, and to question (Baer & Frese, Reference Birdi, Leach and Magadley2003; Edmondson, Kramer, & Cook, Reference Kessel, Kratzer and Schultz2004; Nembhard & Edmondson, Reference Nembhard and Edmondson2006). In particular, the process view of leadership in which IL attributes facilitates employees’ behavior positively shapes their perceptions about the organizational context in a way which is conducive to IWB. Our investigation also suggests that researchers should evaluate other mediation mechanisms in order to better explain and understand the relationship between IL and employees’ IWB. Finally, our findings also support the social exchange view (Blau, Reference Costigan, Insinga, Jason Berman, Ilter, Kranas and Kureshov1964). We demonstrate that when employees are valued in the organization through IL attributes such as openness and participation in decision-making, positive social exchange occurs and employees tend to reciprocate this by exhibiting IWB.
Managerial implications
Our findings have several implications for managers. First, IL was demonstrated to facilitate employees’ IWB. It is important for managers to understand how to foster IWB in employees. We recommend that managers cultivate an IL style by emphasizing openness, availability, and accessibility in order to create conditions for employees to speak about new ideas and voice their opinions. Therefore, it is practically important for leaders to socialize and initiate training programs to cultivate a close relationship with employees. Environmental complexity with new changes has made creativity and innovation important sources to compete in the market (Pan, Sun, & Chow, Reference Pan, Sun and Chow2012; Brettel, Chomik, & Flatten, Reference De Jong and Den Hartog2015; Carmeli, Dutton, & Hardin, Reference Ellen Mathisen, Einarsen and Mykletun2015). In this perspective, some employees are socially interwoven and some are socially distant. Socially interwoven employees accept new changes; however, socially distant employees prefer the status quo and abhor new changes. By creating a greater sense of PS, IL can increase employees’ IWB.
Limitations and future directions
This study has some methodological strength that increases the confidence in the results. First, we collected data from separate sources: data related to predictor and mediator variables were collected from employees and the data regarding the criterion variable were collected from the supervisors. Second, the time lag between the responses of supervisor and employees was one month. These strengths reduce the potential effects of common methods and single source bias.
Some limitations should also be highlighted. First, the small sample size creates barriers to generalizing the findings of this study. It is advised to conduct further studies with relatively larger samples along other cities and sectors. Second, we explored how IL may affect IWB via the mediating role of PS. The future studies may explore the additional mediating paths between IL and IWB. One possibility is to examine the role of individual level motivations and attitudes like intrinsic motivation, psychological empowerment, and creative self-efficacy (Shin & Zhou, Reference Shin and Zhou2003; Zhang & Bartol, Reference Zhang and Bartol2010). Another possibility is to examine the role of contextual factors like climate for innovation and leader–member exchange (Aarons & Sommerfeld, Reference Aarons and Sommerfeld2012; Jaiswal & Dhar, Reference Jaiswal and Dhar2015; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Fang, Qureshi and Janssen2015). Finally, the external validity of the results of this study may be limited because we selected a sample in Pakistan. Therefore, to increase the generalizability of this research, researchers can replicate this study in a different culture or context.
Acknowledgment
This manuscript is an original work that has not been submitted to nor published anywhere else. All authors have read and approved the paper and have met the criteria for authorship.
