Fostering Team Creativity Through Team-Focused Inclusion: The Role of Leader Harvesting the Benefits of Diversity and Cultivating Value-In-Diversity Beliefs

Abstract

This article advances prior theory on inclusive leadership to better understand how leaders foster team creativity through members’ experience that their uniqueness belongs within the team (i.e., team-derived inclusion). We argue that leaders can instigate such sense of inclusion in their team by engaging in two behaviors: stimulating all members of the team to fully express their unique viewpoints and perspectives (harvesting the benefits of diversity) and facilitating beliefs about the value of differences in the team (cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs). In Study 1 (n = 491 employees), we validated newly developed scales measuring these two leader behaviors. Using a sample of 38 teams within one organization (Study 2), we showed that harvesting the benefits of diversity, without also cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs, has a negative effect on team-derived inclusion and indirectly team creativity. In Study 3, we demonstrated based on 93 teams from multiple organizations, while ruling out several alternative explanations, that harvesting the benefits of diversity positively relates to team-derived inclusion and indirectly team creativity, if leaders also cultivated value-in-diversity beliefs. Our model and findings across studies are the first to shed light on inclusive leadership as double-edged sword in that leaders may need to complement harvesting with cultivating to prevent negative effects and elicit positive effects on inclusion and, eventually, team creativity.

Full text

Article
Group & Organization Management
2022, Vol. 47(4) 798–839
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10596011211009683
journals.sagepub.com/home/gom
Fostering Team
Creativity Through
Team-Focused Inclusion:
The Role of Leader
Harvesting the Benefits
of Diversity and
Cultivating
Value-In-Diversity Beliefs
Hannes Leroy
1
, Claudia
Buengeler
2
, Marlies
Veestraeten
3
, Meir Shemla
1
,
and Inga J. Hoever
1
Abstract
This article advances prior theory on inclusive leadership to better un-
derstand how leaders foster team creativity through members’experience
that their uniqueness belongs within the team (i.e., team-derived inclusion).
We argue that leaders can instigate such sense of inclusion in their team by
engaging in two behaviors: stimulating all members of the team to fully express
their unique viewpoints and perspectives (harvesting the benefits of diversity)
and facilitating beliefs about the value of differences in the team (cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs). In Study 1 (n= 491 employees), we validated newly
developed scales measuring these two leader behaviors. Using a sample of 38
teams within one organization (Study 2), we showed that harvesting the benefits
1
Rotterdam School of Management, Netherlands
2
Kiel University, Germany
3
NEOMA Business School, France
Corresponding Author:
Hannes Leroy, Rotterdam School of Management, Burgemeester Oudlaan, Rotterdam 3366BR,
Netherlands.
Email: leroy@rsm.nl

of diversity, without also cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs, has a negative effect
on team-derived inclusion and indirectly team creativity. In Study 3, we
demonstrated based on 93 teams from multiple organizations, while ruling out
several alternative explanations, that harvesting the benefits of diversity posi-
tively relates to team-derived inclusion and indirectly team creativity, if
leaders also cultivated value-in-diversity beliefs. Our model and findings across
studies are the first to shed light on inclusive leadership as double-edged
sword in that leaders may need to complement harvesting with cultivating to
prevent negative effects and elicit positive effects on inclusion and, eventually,
team creativity.
Keywords
inclusive leadership, harvesting the benefits of diversity, cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs, team-derived inclusion, team creativity
The extent to which organizations can thrive in rapidly changing business
environments depends on the creativity of their workforce (Zhou & Hoever,
2014). Research increasingly suggests that developing creative solutions to
complex organizational problems is rarely the domain of the lone genius but
rather requires team creativity (van Knippenberg, 2017;Wuchty, Jones, &
Uzzi, 2007)—the generation of novel and useful ideas by a team of em-
ployees working together interdependently (Hoever, Zhou, & van
Knippenberg, 2018;Shin & Zhou, 2007). Although assembling teams
that are diverse is often regarded as a necessary means to foster a cross-
fertilization of ideas, research also suggests that the mere presence of di-
versity in a team is not a sufficient condition for team creativity (Homan,
Buengeler, Eckhoff, van Ginkel, & Voelpel, 2015;van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007). For instance, although differences in perspectives and
expertise can enhance team creativity (see van Knippenberg & Hoever,
2017, for a review), team members may not fully share their unique insights
or welcome and integrate those of others unless they feel like valued “in-
siders”in their team (Leroy, Hoever, Vangronsvelt, & Van den Broeck, 2020;
Shore et al., 2011).
We apply a theoretical lens of inclusion to better understand what fosters
team creativity (Ferdman & Davidson, 2004;Nishii, 2013;Roberson, 2006;
Shore et al., 2009). Prior work has highlighted the importance of an in-
dividualistic orientation for team creativity, in contrast to a more collectivistic
focus (e.g., Goncalo & Staw, 2006). In inclusive team environments, em-
ployees also feel that they can express their unique self (especially in terms of
Leroy et al. 799

their unique task-relevant perspectives); however, at the same time, they also
maintain a sense of belonging to the group (Shore et al., 2011). In em-
phasizing the coexistence and thus interdependence between uniqueness and
belongingness, team-derived inclusion supersedes potential tensions be-
tween personal and relational identities (Brewer, 1991). This is important as
unique inputs need to be welcomed and integrated by the team before
creative output can emerge (Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, &
Barkema, 2012).
Leadership has been argued to be vital in fostering team-derived inclusion
(Randel et al., 2018). Yet, insights into which specific leader behaviors
actually foster team-derived inclusion are lacking. We propose that team
leaders stimulate team-derived inclusion by engaging in two related but
theoretically distinct behaviors. First, leaders can “harvest the benefits of
diversity”by inviting all team members to fully participate in and uniquely
contribute to team processes. This implies that leaders elicit and stimulate
the combination of the team members’different ideas, strengths, and per-
spectives (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010;Nembhard & Edmondson,
2006). Second, leaders can “cultivate value-in-diversity beliefs”by actively
promoting positive conceptions of diversity in their team to motivate team
members to engage across difference (Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, &
De Dreu, 2007;van Knippenberg, Haslam, & Platow, 2007). This means that
leaders aid in building the shared perception that differences in members’
strengths, knowledge, values, and input provide opportunities for the team as
a whole to create added value (Janssen & Huang, 2008;van Dick, van
Knippenberg, H¨
agele, Guillaume, & Brodbeck, 2008;van Knippenberg, van
Ginkel, & Homan, 2013).
We argue that these leader behaviors interact in promoting team-derived
inclusion and, in turn, team creativity (Figure 1). Specifically, for fostering
team-derived inclusion and indirectly, team creativity, harvesting the
benefits of diversity needs to be complemented by cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs. Because uniqueness and belongingness are inter-
connected, the overall sense of team-derived inclusion will be reduced
when individual differences are invited and elicited (harvesting), but their
appreciation by others is not facilitated (cultivating). In contrast, when
leaders do both, team members will feel fully included, which should aid
with the team’s ability to build on unique input toward more creative
outcomes.
This study contributes to existing research in important ways. Prior
work has considered a variety of frameworks on how leadership promotes
creativity (Mainemelis, Kark, & Epitropaki, 2015). For instance, by
means of intellectually stimulating followers, transformational leaders
800 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

pool the best and most creative ideas from followers (Shin & Zhou, 2003,
2007;Wang & Rode, 2010). Authentic leadership theory and research
further suggest that creativity is stimulated by asking employees to bring
their authentic and unique selves to the workplace (Lemoine, Hartnell, &
Leroy, 2019). Prior work on these multicomponent leadership styles
however shows mixed results (e.g., Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, &
Boerner, 2008;Jaussi & Dionne, 2003;Jung, 2001;Wilson-Evered,
H¨
artel, & Neale, 2001), partly due to shortcomings in terms of broad
conceptualizations (e.g., van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013;Lemoine et al.,
2019).
Our work adds to prior work by offering more precision in our concep-
tualization of inclusive leadership (i.e., harvesting the benefits of di-
versity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs). Prior work has already
used the terms “leader inclusiveness”and “inclusive leadership”focused
on either the importance of creating psychologically safe environments in
which followers voice their creative ideas (Nembhard & Edmondson,
2006;Randel, Dean, Ehrhart, Chung, & Shore, 2016)oronpreventing
exclusionary environments with high within-team variability in the
quality of Leader–Member-Exchange (LMX) relationships (Buengeler,
Piccolo, & Locklear, 2021;Nishii & Mayer, 2009). Our work, using
theory on inclusion (Shore et al., 2011;Randel et al., 2018), adds to these
perspectives by highlighting the need for leaders to emphasize both the
inclusion of novel perspectives (uniqueness) and avoiding exclusion of
people into outgroups (belongingness) as both are highly interconnected
in the context of teamwork. We elaborate on this theoretical perspective
next.
Figure 1. Hypothesized research model.
Leroy et al. 801

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Team-Derived Inclusion: Satisfying Both Uniqueness and
Belongingness Needs
Inclusion has recently been defined as the satisfaction of people’s needs for
uniqueness and belongingness (Shore et al., 2011). Building on Brewer’s
(1991) optimal distinctiveness theory, Shore and colleagues proposed that
feeling included in one’s team entails feeling connected to the collective
(belongingness) while at the same time perceiving oneself as sufficiently
distinct from other team members (uniqueness). Specifically, individuals tend
to fulfill their need to belong by establishing strong bonds with and seeking
acceptance from other team members. In addition, people often come to
identify themselves with their team and attribute positive characteristics to it
and its members (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). At the same time, individuals
strive for uniqueness as they want to retain a certain level of differentiation
from other team members in order to not become interchangeable (Shore
et al., 2011).
The frame of reference which individuals consider felt inclusion may
vary according to the salience of particular identities. Within the context of
organizational life, one’s work team may be especially relevant, since the
importance of this group membership is continuously reinforced, and most
proximal to individuals’daily work experiences (Shore et al., 2011). Thus,
we conceptualize felt inclusion regarding one’s team as denoting both
feeling unique in that team and feeling one belongs by virtue of having
other members of the team grant and respect one’s uniqueness. Within
a team context, the satisfaction of the needs for uniqueness and belong-
ingness is thus likely interdependent (Shore et al., 2011) Team-derived
inclusion solves a problem in past research that has suggested a tension
between one’s personal and relational identities (Brewer, 1991;Ferdman,
2017). Within current inclusion theorizing that underlies our conceptual-
ization of team-derived inclusion, we follow others in combining
uniqueness and belongingness in the overall concept of team-derived felt
inclusion (e.g., Buengeler, Leroy, & De Stobbeleir, 2018;Shore et al.,
2011).
Team-Derived Inclusion and Team Creativity
We put forward that team-derived inclusion is conducive to team creativity for
various reasons (see also Shore & Chung, 2021; for several other rationales).
For multiple members working interdependently to develop solutions that are
802 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

more creative than what an individual could have developed single-handedly,
members need to both recognize and bring in their unique perspectives while
the team needs to constructively use and combine these elements (Hoever
et al., 2018;Leroy et al., 2020). Critically, the extent to which members
experience both uniqueness and belongingness in their team may facilitate the
mobilization and integration of members’resources in the team, to benefit
team creativity.
Team members who feel they can and are encouraged to express their
uniqueness in the team are more open to sharing, discussing, and utilizing novel
perspectives and divergent ideas. Research has shown that when individuals feel
valued as a unique member of the team, they feel empowered to personally
contribute to the team’sactivities(Davidson & Ferdman, 2002;Ferdman &
Davidson, 2004;Mor Barak, 2014;Swann, Kwan, Polzer, & Milton, 2003).
Indeed, awareness of one’s uniqueness in the team reflects a member’sinsight
that he or she can offer ideas and perspectives that others may not and can hence
increase a sense of responsibility to make this input heard in the team
(Schittekatte & van Hiel, 1996). As such, if members believe that their personal
contributions are of value to the team, they may increasingly voice problems,
combine new ideas into solutions, and communicate creative suggestions (van
Knippenberg, 2000;van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). This makes the team
think more divergently and solve problems more creatively (Nemeth & Kwan,
1985). In addition, members are more willing to deal with the uncertainty and
risk associated with team creativity (Carmeli, Cohen-Meitar, & Elizur, 2007;
Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012;Swann et al., 2003).
Experiencing a sense of belonging critically complements the effects of
a sense of uniqueness for the team processes conducive to team creativity.
Research shows that feeling connected to the collective may stimulate in-
formation sharing, increase voice behaviors, and optimize collective learning
and creative processes (Goncalo & Staw, 2006;Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham,
2004;Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). A sense of belonging also boosts
members’identification with the team and willingness to contribute to it (e.g.,
in the form of creative ideas) and lowers members’feelings of uncertainty or
risk when expressing disparate perspectives (Carmeli et al., 2010;Hirak et al.,
2012;Shemla & Wegge, 2019;van Prooijen, van den Bos, & Wilke, 2004).
Similarly, a sense of belonging to the team may increase members’motivation
to invest the effort needed to understand diverging viewpoints and work
through them to arrive at new, integrative understandings of complex issues.
For one thing, an increased sense of belonging engenders a more prosocial
motivation toward the team which in turn may lead members to frame dis-
parate views as constructive rather than oppositional (De Dreu, Nijstad, & van
Knippenberg, 2008). This may prompt behaviors like perspective taking
Leroy et al. 803

(Grant & Berry, 2011) which may aid in transforming diverse insights into
collective creativity (Hoever et al., 2012). For another, members who experience
a stronger sense of belonging may also be more likely to try and link others’input
to the team’s goals. This is important, since the relevance of others’input for the
team may not always be immediately clear, thereby requiring additional efforts to
integrate. This, in turn, is an important prerequisite to the integration of per-
spectives vital for collective creativity (van Knippenberg, 2017).
In sum, team creativity is enhanced when individual team members ex-
perience a sense of belonging to their team with all their uniqueness. In inclusive
team contexts, members can express themselves without the fear of becoming
an outsider or being rejected for expressing divergent perspectives (Shore et al.,
2011). This, in turn, facilitates the co-construction of knowledge and con-
structive team discussions, fostering team creativity (Carmeli et al., 2010;
Edmondson, 1999;Hirak et al., 2012). Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1: Team-derived inclusion is positively related to team
creativity.
The Role of Leadership in Promoting Team-Derived Inclusion
Harvesting the benefits of diversity entails actively inviting all members to
contribute their different viewpoints, strengths, and characteristics and
encouraging the voicing of ideas and critical perspectives. When team
leaders prompt the expression of everyone’s idiosyncratic characteristics and
ideas, members are encouraged to express their perspectives and ideas,
including the personal experiences that inform them within their team
(Kahn, 1990;Thomas & Ely, 1996). As such, harvesting the benefits of
diversity is more holistic in nature than earlier conceptions of inclusive
leadership (e.g., Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006)inthatitreferstoinviting
team members to not only voice different opinions but also do so in a way
that enables them to be expressions of their personal identity and history
rather than disconnected from their personal experience. This implies that
leaders explicitly elicit members’diverse personal qualities and expe-
riences that constitute their full self (cf. Ferdman & Deane, 2014;Kahn,
1990;Thomas & Ely, 1996). This distinction is especially important in
the context of team creativity, since the generation of creative ideas is not
only the product of technical exchange of knowledge, but it also emerges
from the interaction of different team members’experiences and points of
views that are related to individuals’unique self.
By inviting everyone’s characteristics, talents, and voices across mul-
tiple lines of difference, leaders set the stage for the members’perception of
804 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

being an insider in and valuable contributor to the team (Shore et al., 2011).
However, harvesting the benefits of diversity will not necessarily benefitfelt
inclusion in the team. When leaders invite team members to voice their different
perspectives but the team is not open to hear those perspectives, this could
inhibit feelings of team-derived inclusion. Indeed, research on leading diverse
teams more broadly has recognized that especially when different identity
categories are salient, team leaders need to create a viable social basis for teams
to be able to benefit from the open exchange of divergent ideas and insights
(Homan, Gündemir, Buengeler, & van Kleef, 2020). Since team members
generally incline toward discounting new information (Cruz, Boster, &
Rodriguez, 1997;Tagg a r, 20 0 1), the expression and sharing of unique per-
spectives may elicit feelings of rejection. Indeed, increasing the number of
diverse perspectives without creating an environment that enables team
members to cope with and value such differences highlights to individuals how
they are different from others, making them feel less rather than more included.
Therefore, we suggest that the positive influence of harvesting leader behaviors
on team-derived inclusion is conditional on leaders also cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs.
We argue that for eliciting team-derived inclusion, leaders also need to
explicitly promote collective beliefs that differences between the members
entail an advantage for the team as a whole (see, for instance, Shemla,
Meyer, Greer, & Jehn, 2016;vanDicketal.,2008;van Knippenberg &
Haslam, 2003). Hence, team leaders also needtoactivelypositiondif-
ferences as a natural and positive aspect of the team and cultivate beliefs
that these interpersonal differences are an asset for the team (Holvino,
Ferdman, & Merril-Sands, 2004;Homan et al., 2008;van Knippenberg
et al., 2007). Indeed, value-in-diversity beliefs have been shown to
generate more positive perceptions of and responses to differences among
group members (Homan et al., 2007;van Knippenberg et al., 2013). As
a result, team members are more likely to notice, be open to, and value the
differences among them (Homan et al., 2007,2008;Nishii, 2013).
Likewise, more meaningful exchanges arise, in-depth information pro-
cessing increases, and the exploration of diverse input is stimulated
(Kearney & Gebert, 2009). In addition, the shared belief that differences
inherently hold advantages and opportunities for the team—for instance,
because a variety of experiences, perspectives, and insights enriches the
team and offers resources for adaptive change—will lead to more effort to
work with differences in the team (Janssen & Huang, 2008;van
Knippenberg et al., 2013), explain and learn from different viewpoints
(Ely & Thomas, 2001), and integrate diverse input (Nishii, 2013;Shore
et al., 2009).
Leroy et al. 805

Hypothesis 2: There is an interactive relationship between harvesting the
benefits of diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs with team-
derived inclusion such that the relationship between harvesting the benefits
of diversity and team-derived inclusion is positive when cultivating value-
in-diversity beliefs is high and negative when it is low.
A natural extension of our model, combining Hypothesis 1 and 2, is
that the interaction effect hypothesized above further feeds into team
creativity. This extension highlights how team leaders are key actors
when it comes to shaping the team environment and motivating the team
to make creative contributions (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange,
2002;Qu, Janssen, & Shi, 2015;Shalley & Gilson, 2004;Somech,
2006). Team-derived inclusion is a particularly interesting and novel
variable to help understand how leaders motivate the team toward cre-
ativity as it describes the psychological basis of well-known antecedents of
team creativity (e.g., information elaboration; vanKnippenberg,Homan,&De
Dreu, 2004).
When leaders encourage and appreciate unique views and character-
istics while instilling a shared belief in the team that differences are
valuable, this makes team members feel fully included in their team. As
a result, they are more likely to express their unique selves by sharing
novel ideas and perspectives and to value others expressing their unique
selves in this way. Teams characterized by high levels of inclusion are
more prone to discuss, recombine, and integrate novel ideas and per-
spectives. Such use of differences is conducive to team creativity (Hoever
et al., 2012;Homan et al., 2015). However, our model also suggests that
encouraging team members to bring forth their diverse perspectives
(harvesting) without building an environment that equally appreciates
such differences (cultivating) will be detrimental to team-derived in-
clusion and team creativity.
Hypothesis 3: Team-derived inclusion mediates the interactive relationship
between harvesting the benefits of diversity and cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs with team creativity.
Studies
We conducted three studies to test our hypotheses. Study 1 comprises the
development of a scale to assess the two leader behaviors—harvesting the
benefits of diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs—hypothesized
to stimulate team creativity via fostering team-derived inclusion. In Study 2,
806 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

we tested our hypotheses within teams of one organization whereas Study 3
served to confirm our results in a sample of teams of various organizations.
Study 1: Scale Development
The aim of this pilot study was to construct and validate our conceptualization
of leader behaviors (i.e., harvesting the benefits of diversity and cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs) and test the discriminant validity of this measure
from two related concepts of leadership, intellectual stimulation (Podsakoff,
Mackenzie, & Bommer, 1996), and authentic leadership (Walumbwa, Avolio,
Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008).
Measures
1
All items (see Tab l e 1) were rated on a seven-point Likert scale from 1 (not at
all) to 7 (very much). For item development, we build on existing con-
ceptualizations. For harvesting the benefits of diversity, we used Nembhard
and Edmondson’s (2006) three-item measurement of “leader inclusiveness”as
a starting point. This scale focused on leadership as encouraging followers to
voice their concerns in the context of team learning. Although our measure
also includes an item that reflects leader encouragement of voice behavior, it
more broadly captures whether leaders elicit that employees voice ideas and
opinions in the work context in a way that draws on and is informed by
members’unique background in terms of personal strengths, insights, and
experiences. Additionally, whereas the measure of Nembhard and Edmondson
(2006) focused on utilizing diverse perspectives of individual followers, our
measure explicitly has a team focus. This is an important distinction as
eliciting differences from the team as a whole is not the same as eliciting
differences from individual followers.
For the development of the items of cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs,
we relied on the conceptualizations of van Knippenberg et al. (2007) and
Nishii (2013), focusing on the development of collective pro-diversity beliefs
aimed at the appreciation and integration of differences. We focused on leader
actions designed to ensure the team as a whole understands the benefits of
making decisions that integrate diverse perspectives. Similar to harvesting the
benefits of diversity, our measure focused on the leader’s impact on the team as
a whole.
We followed Hinkin’s (1998) deductive approach to develop both scales.
We first developed an initial list of items based on the previously outlined
conceptualizations of the two leadership behaviors. This set of eight items per
scale was then further refined iteratively by presenting our definitions (and
Leroy et al. 807

those of a few alternative constructs; i.e., intellectual stimulation and authentic
leadership) and our set of items to a pool of topic experts (established scholars
in the field), asking those experts to sort the items according to the definitions
provided. That process of matching items with definitions occurred several
Table 1. Pattern Matrix Resulting From Oblique Exploratory Factor Analysis:
Study 1.
Item
Harvesting the
Benefits of
Diversity
Cultivating Value-
In-Diversity Beliefs
Dimension 1: Harvesting the benefits of
diversity
1. Our team leader encourages all of us
to voice our opinions
.78
2. Our team leader ensures that all team
members are valued for their
contributions
.93
3. Our team leader makes sure that
everyone’s unique strengths are
leveraged
.79
4. Our team leader creates an
environment in which we can be
ourselves
.89
5. Our team leader encourages
everyone to be unique
.81
Dimension 2: Cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs
6. Our team leader enables us to see
differences as an advantage rather
than as a disadvantage
.78
7. Our team leader helps us to see how
differences among us can be an added
value for the team
.95
8. Our team leader helps us to solve
disagreements to make better
decisions for the team
.89
9. Our team leader encourages us to
listen to perspectives that are
different than our own
.79
10. Our team leader helps us to
understand that different views are
needed to understand the bigger
picture
.84
808 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

times until all raters agreed that our final set of items aligned with the construct
in question (Hinkin, 1998).
We also included measures for authentic leadership (Walumbwa et al.,
2008) and intellectual stimulation, a dimension of transformational leadership
(Podsakoff et al., 1996), to ensure discriminant validity of our measures. Due
to space constraints, we could not include the full measure of transformational
leadership, so we opted to use a four-item measure of intellectual stimulation.
Intellectual stimulation entails that leaders promote followers developing
divergent perspectives and has previously been linked to employee voice
(Detert & Burris, 2007). While the stimulation of follower contributions
resembles our conceptualization of harvesting the benefits of diversity, it is
different in that it focuses on the individual follower rather than the team as
a whole. Furthermore, intellectual stimulation—while geared toward
promoting individual members’creativity—is not focused on linking
work-related insights to members’personal experiences and backgrounds.
Authentic leadership has been linked to follower authenticity or the ex-
pression of one’s authentic self at work (Lemoine et al., 2019;Leroy,
Anseel, Garner, & Sels, 2015). In this regard, authentic leadership is more
akin to harvesting the benefits of diversity than intellectual stimulation as it
encourages the expression of follower’s full and authentic self. However,
authentic leadership is not focused on the team level; while it promotes the
authenticity of individual followers, it does not explicitly promote an
environment where the authenticity of others is appreciated.
Analyses and Results
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. To explore the factor structure of
the scales developed to measure harvesting the benefits of diversity and
cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs, we collected data from a convenience
sample of 491 employees across 45 for-profit organizations in Belgium. These
organizations’focal activities include providing consultancy, insurance, or
financial services. Human Resources (HR) representatives provided us with
the e-mail addresses of 1362 employees whom we invited to complete an
online survey. In total, 548 team members (40%) responded. Respondents’
average age was 40 (SD = 10.26) and 66% were women. 25% held a graduate
degree, 53% held an undergraduate degree, and the average tenure was
10 years (SD = 9.34).
As a first step, we performed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for our
two new measures. Because of the assumed interrelatedness of the two hy-
pothesized inclusive leader behaviors, we used oblique (non-orthogonal)
rotation in SPSS 22 (Direct Oblimin Rotation Method with Kaiser
Leroy et al. 809

Normalization). All items loaded on their respective subdimension and the
resulting two-factor model explained 75.94% of the variance. Table 1 presents
the measurement items with their respective factor loadings.
Next, we performed confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and estimated the
fit of our measurement model to the data using the Mplus statistical package
(Muth´
en & Muth´
en, 1998-2015). The results indicate a good fit of the model
to the data (χ
2
= 158.82; df = 34; p< .001; CFI = .97; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .08;
SRMR = .02) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In addition, this model provided a better fit
to the data (Δχ
2
[1] = 574.17; p= .001) than a model in which both harvesting
the benefits of diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs were
combined into one factor (χ
2
= 732.99; df = 35; p< .001; CFI = .87; TLI = .84;
RMSEA = .19; SRMR = .06). Table 2 shows the measurement items with their
standardized factor loadings.
Discriminant validity. We ran a CFA model to examine the discriminant validity
between harvesting the benefits of diversity,cultivating value-in-diversity
beliefs, intellectual stimulation, and authentic leadership. We found that
a model differentiating these factors showed a good fit to the data (χ
2
= 356.82;
df = 465; p< .001; CFI = .97; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .02).
Alternative models that combined the items of authentic leadership or in-
tellectual stimulation into one factor with the items of harvesting the benefits
of diversity resulted in a worse fit(p< .001) than the model in which these
variables were kept separate.
Study 2: Establishing the Hypothesized Relationships
In Study 2, we tested our hypothesized relationships using the leadership
measures developed and validated in Study 1. We collected data from em-
ployees in a single organization as a means of holding organization-level
factor constants.
Method
Sample and procedure. We collected data in a Belgian healthcare organization
with 218 employees. As we were interested in leader behaviors conducive to
team-derived inclusion (i.e., inclusion as experienced in the context of one’s
team) at the team level of analysis, our sampling focused on identifying teams.
Our partner organization was not amenable to our collecting data from their
entire workforce; therefore, we asked our contact person in the HR department
to randomly select teams that met two criteria. The teams needed to (a) consist
of at least two members who interdependently work on collective tasks and
810 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

share responsibilities toward achieving common goals (Kozlowski & Bell,
2003) and (b) have a formal team leader. We received e-mail addresses of
180 team members and 38 team leaders. We sent online surveys to these
respondents (leaders rated team creativity, and team members rated the
Table 2. Standardized Loadings Resulting From Confirmatory Factor Analysis:
Study 1.
Item
Harvesting the
Benefits of
Diversity
Cultivating Value-
In-Diversity Beliefs
Dimension 1: Harvesting the benefits of
diversity
1. Our team leader encourages all of us
to voice our opinions
.89
2. Our team leader ensures that all team
members are valued for their
contributions
.89
3. Our team leader makes sure that
everyone’s unique strengths are
leveraged
.90
4. Our team leader creates an
environment in which we can be
ourselves
.81
5. Our team leader encourages
everyone to be unique
.89
Dimension 2: Cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs
6. Our team leader enables us to see
differences as an advantage rather
than as a disadvantage
.84
7. Our team leader helps us to see how
differences among us can be an added
value for the team
.89
8. Our team leader helps us to solve
disagreements to make better
decisions for the team
.89
9. Our team leader encourages us to
listen to perspectives that are
different than our own
.88
10. Our team leader helps us to
understand that different views are
needed to understand the bigger
picture
.83
Leroy et al. 811

other measures) and assured absolute confidentiality of the information
provided. In total, 38 teams were included in our final sample (i.e., a total of
174 [97%] followers and 38 [100%] leaders). Respondents’average age
was 41 (SD = 8.81) and 73% were women. 92% held an undergraduate
degree and 8% held a graduate degree, and the average tenure in the
organization was 14 years (SD = 10.34). The average age of the team
leaders was 47 (SD = 7.99), 59% were women, and their average tenure was
10 years (SD = 8.54). 29% held an undergraduate degree, and 71% held
agraduatedegree.
Measures
Harvesting the benefits of diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs. We
used the items developed in Study 1 (internal consistencies of these and other
constructs in Study 2 are reported on the diagonal of Table 4).
Team-derived inclusion. We measured team-derived inclusion using five
items reflective of uniqueness from Janssen and Huang (2008) and five items
indicating belongingness developed by Lee, Draper, and Lee (2001). Items
were adapted to a team context and were measured on a seven-point Likert
scale ranging from “totally disagree”(1) to “totally agree”(7). Sample items
are “In this team, I can be my unique self”(uniqueness) and “In this team, I feel
connected with the other team members”(belongingness). Given that we
conceptualized team-derived inclusion as comprising both high levels of
uniqueness and belongingness, uniqueness and belongingness sub-scores
were collapsed into one overall score.
Team creativity. We measured team leaders’judgments of team creativity
using the three-item scale developed by Sung and Choi (2012). Team leaders
indicated their agreement on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from “totally
disagree”(1) to “totally agree”(7).A sample item is “This team comes up with
new and practical ideas in solving problems.”
Analyses of measurement models. Because our sample size was rather low (N=
174), our study was underpowered to conduct a CFA. In Study 3, we offer
such evidence for a larger sample. In this study, we performed an EFA instead.
Given assumptions of interrelations, we used a method for oblique (non-
orthogonal) rotation in SPSS 22 (Direct Oblimin Rotation Method with Kaiser
Normalization). All items loaded on their respective subdimension and the
resulting two-factor model explained 61% of the variance. Table 3 presents the
measurement items and factor loadings.
Because our leader behaviors are conceptualized at the team level and
assumed to be perceived uniformly among the members, we aggregated the
ratings of the individual team members to the team level. In support of this
812 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

aggregation decision, mean r
wg
was .90 (Mdn =.89)forharvesting the benefits
of diversity and .85 (Mdn =.84)forcultivating value-in-diversity beliefs,using
a uniform null distribution. ICC(1) and ICC(2) were .22 and .53 for harvesting
the benefits of diversity and .26 and .29 for cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs
(Bliese, 2000). Analyses of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant between-
group variance for both variables: F
(37,173)
=2.11,p<.01,andF
(37,173)
=2.42,
p<.01,respectively.
For team-derived inclusion, we do not a priori expect high levels of
sharedness across all teams. The “team-derived”in the concept label
denotes the context in which team members experience inclusion rather
than the fact that all members experience similar levels of inclusion. Our
theorizing makes it clear that feeling included is an individual-level
variable, not a team-level construct: Individuals report to what extent
they feel to be included in their specific (i.e., team-based) work context.
This aligns with the theoretical basis of satisfaction of basic psychological
needs (Brewer, 1991). This theoretical assumption suggests that team
Table 3. Pattern Matrix Resulting From Oblique Exploratory Factor Analysis:
Study 2.
Harvesting the Benefits
of Diversity
Cultivating Value-In-
Diversity Beliefs
Team-Derived
Inclusion
HARV1 .86
HARV2 .75
HARV3 .67
HARV4 .51
HARV5 .81
CULT1 .57
CULT2 .67
CULT3 .70
CULT4 .92
CULT5 .58
INCL1 .92
INCL2 .82
INCL3 .92
INCL4 .88
INCL5 .59
INCL6 .76
INCL7 .75
INCL8 .59
INCL9 .68
INCL10 .81
Leroy et al. 813

members may not agree on felt inclusion, with some members experiencing
more inclusion than others. A team-level conceptualization of inclusion
would be more akin to team psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999)
where all team members agree that the environment is one that promotes
inclusion (uniqueness and belongingness). Having explained our theo-
retical reasons to focus at inclusion at the individual level, van
Knippenberg et al. (2013) argued that sharedness may reinforce the ef-
fect of team-focused inclusion experienced by members such that the
effects of team-derived inclusion on team creativity may be even stronger
when all team members share similar perceptions of inclusion. Therefore,
we include the level of dispersion in team-derived inclusion as a control
variable in our studies.
Aligned with our theoretical thinking, for team-derived inclusion, we thus
do not report measures of aggregation. We are however interested in the
between-group variance in team-derived inclusion as without this variance we
would be unable to explain effects using team-level leadership and team
creativity. An ANOVA showed a significant amount of between-group var-
iance: F
(37,173)
= 1.69, p< .01. Because of our focus on this between-group
variance in individual team-derived inclusion, we used the average scores per
team in our team-level analyses.
Results
2
Descriptive statistics and correlations among team-level variables are presented
in Tab l e 4 . In Hypothesis 1, we posited that team-derived inclusion is positively
related with team creativity. As can be seenin Tabl e 4,weconfirm a positive and
significant correlation between team-derived inclusion and team creativity. In
Hypothesis 2, we put forward that cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs mod-
erates the relationship of harvesting the benefits of diversity with team-derived
inclusion. To test this hypothesis, we performed a linear regression, regressing
Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Team-Level Study
Variables: Study 2.
MSD1234
1. Harvesting the benefits of diversity 5.37 .93 .84
2. Cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs 5.17 .78 .59 .81
3. Team-derived inclusion 5.45 .64 .02 .26 .84
4. Team creativity 5.16 .86 .44 .40 .61 .91
Note. N = 38 teams. p< .05, p< .01. Reliability estimates are presented on the diagonal.
814 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

harvesting,cultivating, and their interaction on team-derived inclusion. In line
with our hypothesis, the relationship of harvesting with team-derived inclusion
was nonsignificant (β=.17; p= .26), but there was a significant moderation
effect of cultivating on the relationship between harvesting and team-derived
inclusion (β=.46;p< .01). The simple slope computed at one standard de-
viation above the mean of the moderator (i.e., high cultivating) was positive but
nonsignificant (β=.30;p= .67), partially disconfirming Hypothesis 2, whereas
the simple slope at one standard deviation below the mean of the moderator (i.e.,
low cultivating) was significantly negative (β=.64; p=.04)(Aiken & West,
1991). Figure 2 depicts the interaction.
Hypothesis 3 posited that the moderating effect of cultivating on the re-
lationship between harvesting and team creativity is mediated by team-
derived inclusion. To test this indirect effect, we followed the guidelines
of Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007). As predicted, the indirect relationship
was contingent on the levels of the moderator. As Table 5 shows, the indirect
Figure 2. Interaction effect between harvesting the benefits of diversity and
cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs on team-derived inclusion: Study 2.
Leroy et al. 815

Table 5. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Team-Level Study Variables: Study 3.
MSD12 3 4 56789
1. Average gender .75 .25
2. Average age 38.16 7.13 .21
3. Average educational level 4.06 1.19 .03 .14
4. Liking one’s leader 5.38 .79 .11 .07 .01 .86
5. Climate for inclusion 3.98 .52 .07 .20 .13 .20 .92
6. Harvesting the benefits of diversity 5.37 .93 .02 .15 .19 .33 .35 .91
7. Cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs 5.17 .78 .02 .12 .09 .64 .32 .50 .91
8. Team-derived inclusion 5.45 .64 .09 .23.05 .19 .18 .27 .21 .91
9. Team creativity 5.16 .86 .05 .06 .28 .02 .19 .10 .13 .23.84
Note. N = 93 teams. p< .05, p< .01. Reliability estimates are presented on the diagonal.
816 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

effect of harvesting on team creativity is negative when cultivating val is low
(indirect effect =.38, CI = .95, .02), but nonsignificant when it is high
(indirect effect = .06; CI = .43, .49).
This only partially confirms our Hypotheses 2 and 3 in that we saw clear
detriments to harvesting without high degrees of cultivating but could not
confirm that high degrees of cultivating strengthened the effects of harvesting.
Part of these results could be explained by the fact that the organization already
had an overall climate focused on promoting inclusion, potentially restricting the
leader’s positive impact in this regard. Mor Barak, Luria, and Brimhall (2021)
argued that inclusive leadership is not just restricted to leaders of teams but can be
institutionalized in the larger organization, for instance, in the overall climate for
inclusion in the larger organization (Nishii, 2013). In the next study, we intend to
replicate these findings and overcome the limitation of a single organization and
control for the effects of an overall inclusive climate in the organization.
Study 3: Replicating the Hypothesized Relationships
To investigate the generalizability of these results, we tested the same hy-
potheses in a larger sample drawn from multiple organizations in Belgium.
Sampling a wide variety of organizations allowed us to assess whether our
previously established results hold across contexts. The larger, more het-
erogeneous sample also allowed us to control for organizational-level factors
that might influence team-level relationships. Specifically, in Study 3, we
controlled for organizational climate for inclusion to see how leader behaviors
explain variance in team processes beyond the variance explained by climate
for inclusion (e.g., Nishii, 2013). Additionally, we were curious to see if our
effects of leadership explained any variance after controlling for general liking
of the leader (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Prior work has suggested that
follower measures of leader behavior are confounded by a general liking
toward the leader (e.g., Brown & Keeping, 2005;Mumford & Fried, 2014).
Hence, we wanted to make sure our effects were specific to our leader be-
haviors rather than a more general leader appreciation (Nishii & Mayer, 2009).
Method
Sample and procedure. We collected data in 36 Belgian small to medium
organizations (of maximally 100 employees) that provided social welfare
services, such as civic integration services, mental and physical care, and
environmental services. Again, we asked HR representatives of the partici-
pating organizations to randomly select teams that consist of at least two
members who interdependently work on collective tasks and have a formal
Leroy et al. 817

team leader. HR representatives provided us with the e-mail addresses of 1129
team members and 172 team leaders. We sent online surveys to these re-
spondents and assured absolute confidentiality.
We excluded teams from further analyses if less than half of their members
completed the online survey. 93 teams could be retained for further analyses
(i.e., a total of 430 [38%] followers and 93 [54%] leaders). Respondents’
average age was 39 (SD = 10.52) and 68% were women. 55% held an un-
dergraduate degree, 22% held a graduate degree, and the average tenure was
9 years (SD = 8.30). 36% of the respondents indicated that they interacted with
their team leader on a daily basis, 58% did so on a weekly basis, and 6% on
a monthly basis. The average age of the team leaders was 43 (SD = 8.81), 62%
were women, and their average organizational tenure was 12 years (SD =
9.67). 56% held an undergraduate and 38% held a graduate degree.
Measures. We used the same measures and raters (with leaders only rating
team creativity) as in Study 1 and Study 2. Internal consistencies are reported
on the diagonal of Table 5.
Control variables. We included control variables for both general leader
liking and the broader organizational climate for inclusion to differentiate the
effects of our rated leader behaviors from more general impressions about the
leader and the broader organizational climate. The three-item measurement of
leader liking by Wayne et al. (1997) was rated on a seven-point Likert scale
ranging from “totally disagree”(1) to “totally agree”(7). A sample item is
“I like my leader very much.”In addition, we included team leaders’per-
ceptions of the overall climate for inclusion in the organization. The leaders’
perspective allows us to avoid single-source bias but also to tap into the
perspective of the key implementers of an organizations’inclusion strategy
and expectations which may influence their own leader behaviors. We used the
climate for inclusion scale (Nishii, 2013). Items were measured on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from “totally disagree”(1) to “totally agree”(5). Sample
items are “In this organization, promotion processes are fair”(equitable
practices), “This organization is characterized by a nonthreatening envi-
ronment in which people can reveal their ‘true selves’”(integration of dif-
ferences), and “Top management exercises the belief that problem-solving is
improved when input from different roles, ranks, and functions is considered”
(inclusion in decision). Finally, similar to Study 1, we also controlled for the
dispersion of team-derived inclusion to account for potentially stronger effects
of inclusion when inclusion experiences are less dispersed (van Knippenberg
et al., 2013).
Again, because our research model is conceptualized at the team level, we
aggregated individual member ratings to the team level. In support of this
818 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

aggregation decision, we found a mean r
wg
of .91 (Mdn = .92) for harvesting
the benefits of diversity and of .91 (Mdn = .91) for cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs, using a uniform null distribution. ICC(1) and ICC(2) were
.33 and .71 for harvesting the benefits of diversity and .33 and .72 for cul-
tivating value-in-diversity beliefs (Bliese, 2000). ANOVA indicated signifi-
cant amounts of between-group variance for both variables: F
(92,335)
= 3.45,
p< .001, and F
(92,329)
= 3.55, p< .01, respectively. For team-derived in-
clusion, similar to study 2, an ANOVA indicated that there is a significant
amount of between-group variance (F
(92,316)
= 1.92, p< .01). This suggests
that there are differences between teams with regard to team-derived inclusion
and that these can be related to team-level differences in team creativity and
leadership behaviors.
Analyses of measurement models. Using the Mplus statistical package, we
performed several CFAs (Muth´
en & Muth´
en, 1998-2015). The estimation of
a measurement model containing the main variables of our study resulted in
a good fit of the model to the data (χ
2
= 472.41; df = 222; p< .001; CFI = .97;
TLI = .96; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .04) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In a second CFA,
we estimated the fit of a model containing harvesting the benefits of diversity
and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs as a higher-order factor. This model
showed a worse fit to the data compared to a model in which both leader
behaviors are defined as separate constructs (χ
2
= 839.78; df =225;p< .001;
CFI = .92; TLI =.91;RMSEA = .08; SRMR = .05). In a third CFA, we es-
timated a model that contained both the core model variables and the control
variables of liking one’s leader and climate for inclusion. This measurement
model also showed a good fit to the data (χ
2
= 1400.39; df = 609; p< .001;
CFI = .94; TLI = .93; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .05). Three items of the climate
for inclusion scale had to be deleted because these items showed factor
loadings below the cutoff value of .40 on their subdimension. We deleted
a fourth item because its error term was highly correlated with another item’s
error term. Overall, the results suggest that our measurement model fits the
data and that the measures are distinct from each other. Furthermore, pairwise
comparisons of variables (e.g., combining cultivating value-in-diversity be-
liefs or harvesting the benefits of diversity with leader liking in one factor)
systematically showed a worse fit to the data than our hypothesized structure.
Next, we tested the structural model to examine the hypothesized rela-
tionships between the model variables (McDonald & Ho, 2002;Mueller &
Hancock, 2008). As multilevel structural equation models were too
parameter-intensive for our data and results of a path model are similar to the
results obtained using multilevel modeling (Grizzle, Zablah, Brown, Mowen,
& Lee, 2009), we proceeded using aggregated measures in a path model in
Leroy et al. 819

Mplus (Muth´
en & Muth´
en, 1998-2015). Further, to diminish potential
common-method bias due to the fact that the independent and mediating
variables were rated by team members at one point in time, we used a random
split-sample approach (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003;
Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 2003). Harvesting the benefits of diversity,
cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs, and team-derived inclusion were rated
by different members of the same team. This lowers the extent to which
common-method variance is present in the data as different variables are rated
by different raters. The independent variables were standardized to reduce the
risk of multicollinearity and aid interpretation (Snijders & Bosker, 1999).
Results
3
Descriptive statistics and correlations among team-level variables are pre-
sented in Table 5. Internal consistency estimates based on the individual-level
data are shown on the diagonal. Our hypothesized path model showed a good
fit to the data (χ
2
= 4.15; df =4;p= .37; CFI = .99; TLI = .98; RMSEA =.02;
SRMR = .02). Figure 3 shows the full structural model with standardized path
coefficients. In line with Hypothesis 1, we found a positive and significant
relationship between team-derived inclusion and leader-rated team creativity
(β= .23; p<.05). Confirming Hypothesis 2, in which we predicted that the
extent to which leaders engage in cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs
moderates the relationship between harvesting the benefits of diversity and
team-derived inclusion, we found a significant and positive interaction effect
on team-derived inclusion (β= .43; p< .01). The simple slope computed at one
standard deviation above the mean of the moderator (Aiken & West, 1991)
Figure 3. Team-level moderated mediation model with standardized path
coefficients: Study 3. Note. N = 93 teams. p<.05,p< .01. Dotted lines indicate
control variables.
820 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

was positive and significant (β= .38; p< .01), whereas the simple slope at one
standard deviation below the mean of the moderator was not significant (β=
.02; p= .78). Figure 4 reveals that the relationship between harvesting and
team-derived inclusion is positive under the condition that leaders also engage
in cultivating. In contrast, if cultivating is low, there is no effect of harvesting.
Hypothesis 3 posits an indirect relationship of the interaction between
harvesting and cultivating with team creativity via team-derived inclusion.
Therefore, we examined the indirect conditional effects of harvesting on team
creativity through team-derived inclusion under conditions of low, average,
and high values of cultivating. Consistent with predictions, at high levels of
cultivating (i.e., one standard deviation above the mean), the indirect con-
ditional effect was positive and significant (β= .12, p< .05). At both mean and
low (one standard deviation below the mean) levels of the moderator,
the indirect conditional effect was not significant (β= .06, p= .08 and β= .01,
p= .78, respectively). Hence, only when cultivating was high, harvesting
indirectly stimulated team creativity through team-derived inclusion.
Discussion
Inclusion promises to ensure that the diverse members of an organization can
and are motivated to fully participate and contribute to the collective, un-
restrained by dividing forces. Yet, the literature on inclusion so far has not yet
tackled the question of how leaders can stimulate inclusion, and whether
Figure 4. Interaction effect between harvesting the benefits of diversity and
cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs on team-derived inclusion: Study 3.
Leroy et al. 821

experiencing inclusion allows teams to indeed capitalize on their differences,
as indicated by high team creativity. Using a three-study design, we examined
the role of team-derived inclusion in team creativity and elaborated on how
leaders could stimulate team-derived inclusion such that team creativity re-
sults. Our findings revealed that our measure of the two theoretically derived
leader behaviors (harvesting the benefits of diversity and cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs) allows capturing two leadership behaviors that show dis-
criminant validity with related leadership behaviors (Study 1); team-derived
inclusion, understood as the experience of both belongingness and uniqueness
in a team, predicted the team’s creativity (Study 2 and 3); and that a leader’s
harvesting the benefits of diversity was most conducive to team-derived
inclusion and indirectly team creativity when the leader also engaged in
cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs (Study 3) and even negative when the
leader scored low on cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs (Study 2).
Theoretical implications
By showing that through harvesting the benefits of diversity and cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs leaders stimulate team-derived inclusion and thereby
facilitate team creativity, our study contributes to the existing literature in
several ways. First, research on the leadership role in fostering team creativity
(Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004;Shin, Kim, Lee, & Bian, 2012;
Wang & Rode, 2010), in particular of diverse teams (Homan et al., 2020), is
scarce and has only recently begun to systematically move beyond the notion
of transformational leadership (van Knippenberg & Hoever, in press). This
study assists in building understanding of how team leaders can facilitate
collective creativity. This focus makes it important to explore how leaders can
create conditions that allow teams to let their members’resources materialize
in the team context and enable members to positively engage with and
constructively combine them in creative output (e.g., Homan et al., 2020). Our
results suggest that the dual leader behaviors of harvesting the benefits of
diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs may serve this purpose by
creating a setting in which members experience a sense of belonging as unique
members of the team. These results resonate with other conceptualizations of
leadership in the service of bringing out diversity’s benefit for teams (Homan
et al., 2020) or achieving inclusion through leader actions. Most importantly,
two of van Knippenberg and van Ginkel’s (2021) three leadership elements
deserve mentioning here as they underscore similar behaviors as those
highlighted in our dual leader behaviors. Specifically, cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs aligns with the element of advocacy of diversity mindset in
highlighting the promotive potential of differences, and harvesting the benefits
822 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

of diversity behaviors aligns with stimulating elaboration in the form of
making sure diverse input is brought into and leveraged in the team.
We further add to team creativity research by adopting an inclusion lens in
answering the question of how value in diversity can be attained in teams and
how and whether it can facilitate collective creativity. In line with the
information/decision-making perspective (van Knippenberg & Schippers,
2007), we argued that harvesting the benefits of diversity and cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs can foster team creativity through the creation of
a team environment in which divergent input from different team members is
elicited and valued. Specifically, by encouraging members to share and build
upon different insights and building beliefs that diversity is valuable, leaders
function as a motivating force that engages members in the production of
novel ideas. Interestingly, a positive indirect effect when both behaviors were
pronounced only materialized in Study 3. In Study 2, the presence of high
levels of cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs merely suppressed the negative
effects of harvesting the benefits of diversity. One explanation lies in the
existence of a high climate for inclusion in the organization which provided
the sample for Study 2. More specifically, following a substitutes-for-
leadership reasoning (Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986), an organization’s
high climate for inclusion may neutralize the positive effects of leader cul-
tivating value-in-diversity beliefs as cultivating may be the norm rather than
the exception for all leaders. In contrast, leaders engaging in harvesting the
benefits of diversity without also cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs in an
inclusive organizational climate may be penalized, as evident in lowered felt
inclusion in the team and, indirectly, team creativity in the results from Study
2. Future research may identify additional context variables that influence the
impact of the two leader behaviors.
Furthermore, this study contributes to the debate on whether perceptions of
belongingness hinder or foster team creativity (van Knippenberg & Schippers,
2007). Research is still inconclusive regarding the relationship between
creative processes on the one hand and variables reflecting belongingness in
teams, such as team identification, social cohesion, and team identity, on the
other hand (Homan et al., 2020;van Knippenberg et al., 2007). Most group
creativity research is premised on the assumption that creativity is more likely
to emerge when people feel liberated to express their authentic and unfiltered
point of view (Forster, Friedman, Butterbach, & Sassenberg, 2005) and that
team cohesion and belongingness stifle creativity by constraining members
and determining which thought can be openly expressed and which should be
withheld to avoid offense. Our results, suggesting that it is the integrated
satisfaction of members’need for belongingness and uniqueness that enables
creativity in teams, are in line with the recently offered idea that creative ideas
Leroy et al. 823

are more likely to emerge in the presence of both constraints and authenticity
(Ferdman et al., 2010;Goncalo, Chatman, Duguid, & Kennedy, 2015;Leroy
et al., 2020;Jansen, Otten, Zee, & Jans, 2014).
Our study also adds to the inclusion literature by focusing on team leaders
as instrumental in building an inclusive team environment. Although scholars
converge in their assertion that perceived inclusion is associated with positive
consequences for individual employees, work groups, and organizations,
little is known about how perceptions of inclusion develop and empirical
work on the antecedents and outcomes of collective inclusion is scarce
(Buengeler et al., 2018;Jansen et al., 2014;Sabharwal, 2014). Our study
functions as a deductive integration of two leader behaviors that are important
in realizing the benefits of differences in teams (Sabharwal, 2014). Our
findings suggest that leaders are key actors in fostering full participation of
members in team processes (Carmeli et al., 2010;Hirak et al., 2012;Nishii,
2013) and shaping collective beliefs concerning the value of diversity for
heightened team functioning (van Knippenberg et al., 2007).
Moreover, our conceptualization of harvesting the benefits of diversity and
cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs is essentially oriented at the team as
a whole, which provides more directions for studying the development of
team—rather than individual—processes and outcomes such as team learning
and team performance. The core difference between Nembhard and
Edmondson’s (2006) leader inclusiveness and our construct of harvesting
the benefits of diversity is that the former concept focuses on eliciting voice
behavior from individual team members. However, the invitation and ap-
preciation of other deep-level differences in all members’strengths, back-
grounds, and capacities—which is the essence of valuing the inherent
differences in team members’whole self (Ely & Thomas, 2001)—is not
present in this construct. Further, we found that the active promotion of value-
in-diversity beliefs strengthens the opportunities for creating value in diversity
(Homan et al., 2007;van Dick et al., 2008). Indeed, our results suggest that
without constructing a meta-narrative that values differences, team-derived
inclusion and team creativity may not be fostered to their full extent. Few work
speaks to how leaders foster team creativity specifically (van Knippenberg &
Hoever, 2017). As such, the theoretical underpinnings of “leading toward
team creativity”are rather limited (Wilson-Evered et al., 2001). Scholars have
called for more fine-grained theorizing to help elucidate how leaders can help
foster team creativity (Boies, Fiset, & Gill, 2015;Homan et al., 2020;
Mainemelis et al., 2015). We answer that call by developing a theoretical
perspective of how leaders foster team creativity through team-focused
inclusion.
824 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Our findings should be interpreted within the context of this study’s limi-
tations. First, in developing and validating a measure of the two leader be-
haviors aimed at assisting in establishing an inclusive team environment, we
based our conceptualization of harvesting the benefits of diversity and cul-
tivating value-in-diversity beliefs on research that identified leader behavior
concerning the invitation of different inputs and voices (i.e., Nembhard
& Edmondson, 2006) and studies that highlighted the role of value-in-
diversity perceptions as an important condition under which perceived and
actual diversity in team contexts relates to beneficial team outcomes (i.e.,
Homan et al., 2007;van Knippenberg et al., 2007). Informed by these studies,
we considered both dimensions as relevant leadership behaviors for initiating
team-derived inclusion. We do not claim, however, that this is an exhaustive
conceptualization of possible leader behaviors that may stimulate inclusion
(see, for instance, Randel et al., 2018;van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2021,
this volume). Future research may cross-validate our findings in other settings
and contexts and deduct potential additional behaviors conducive to expe-
riencing inclusion.
We found a high correlation between harvesting the benefits of diversity
and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs (r= .59 and .50 in Study 2 and 3,
respectively). On the one hand, it is not surprising that these constructs are
considerably correlated as they both refer to the extent to which team leaders
positively approach and value diversity. On the other hand, although cor-
relations such as ours are not problematic when constructs are clear and high
correlations are theoretically explained (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013),
this finding may raise questions regarding the constructs’conceptual dis-
tinctiveness. It could be questioned, for instance, whether both inclusive
leader behaviors reflect the constituting parts of an overarching construct
rather than two separate constructs. In our study, several factor analyses
indicated that modeling the variables as separate dimensions provided a better
fit to the data than models in which they are specified as one factor (see
Appendix B). Moreover, the primary goal of this research was to pinpoint how
these leader behaviors interact in fostering team-derived inclusion and team
creativity, rather than specifying an overarching additive construct. Our
approach is consistent with van Knippenberg and Sitkin’s (2013) critique of
the higher-order charismatic-transformational leadership construct and as this
overarching construct does not allow for the examination of whether and how
distinct dimensions may interact, producing different outcomes (see also
Lemoine et al., 2019).
Leroy et al. 825

Relatedly, a possible partial explanation for the high correlation in our
study is the presence of common-method variance in our data (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). To alleviate concerns, we applied a random split-sample ap-
proach to assure that different members from the same team rated the in-
dependent and mediating variables. We further examined moderation
hypotheses. Common-method variance is not considered to be a problem
when interactions are examined (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, &
Sheets, 2002;McClelland & Judd, 1993;Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010), as
it deflates rather than inflates interaction effects, making them more difficult to
detect (Siemsen et al., 2010). Last, we aggregated the data to the team level.
This contributes to leveling out possible impact of social desirability or
negative/positive effect on individual self-ratings. The stability of findings
across two studies further increases our confidence in the respective findings.
Future research may replicate our findings with a longitudinal or experimental
design.
Last, this research has been conducted in Western organizations. Given the
relatedness of cultural norms of individualism (collectivism) and the pursuit of
uniqueness (belongingness) (e.g., Goncalo & Staw, 2006), future research
should address the role of such cultural dimensions in the establishment of
workplace inclusion.
Practical Implications
Realizing the benefits of diversity has become a business imperative. The
present study targets two important issues in this regard: on the one hand, it
shows how organizations, through their leaders, can stimulate a collective sense
of inclusion. On the other hand, it addresses the question of how the promise of
team creativity that diverse workforces entail can be realized. Organizations
increasingly introduce practices and initiatives that focus on the full partici-
pation of different organization members in work processes and emphasize the
provision of opportunities for all employees to use the full range of their skills,
viewpoints, strengths, and competencies at work (Ferdman & Deane, 2014;
Roberson, 2006).
Given the importance of collective creativity for organizations’ability to
innovate and adapt to changing environments, the finding that an inclusive
approach to leadership and team-derived inclusion play a role in facilitating
team creativity is also relevant to organizations (George, 2007;Zhou &
Shalley, 2008). Indeed, HR managers often indicate that improving the uti-
lization of different employees’talents and enhancing teams’creativity and
problem-solving ability are the most important reasons for increasing
826 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

workplace diversity (Robinson & Dechant, 1997;Mannix & Neale, 2005).
Our findings show that team leaders are key actors in shaping inclusive work
environments (Boekhorst, 2015).
Therefore, raising team leaders’awareness of their role in creating an
inclusive work environment and guiding them to add both dimensions of
inclusive leadership to their behavioral repertoire should become a focus in
leadership interventions and development programs. In this way, team leaders
can be trained in conveying inclusive behaviors on a daily basis. Likewise, HR
representatives can communicate the importance of inclusion by being part of
the development of value-in-diversity beliefs and by ensuring that new hires
are made aware of and can contribute to realizing the benefits of the inherent
diversity in the workforce (Homan et al., 2007;van Dick et al., 2008;van
Knippenberg et al., 2007,2013).
Conclusion
As today’s organizations incorporate an increasingly diverse workforce,
the question arises how the benefits of this diversity can be realized.
Following recent research on building inclusive work environments, we
proposed that leaders who harvest the benefits of diversity by explicitly
inviting and appreciating the variety of unique inputs from all team
members stimulate team-derived inclusion, defined as team members’
collective experience of both uniqueness and belongingness. Yet, at the
same time, team leaders should also cultivate collective value-in-
diversity beliefs because only in conjunction are these two leader be-
haviors beneficial for team-derived inclusion, and indirectly, team
creativity.
Appendix A
Overview of Measures: Study 2 and 3
Harvesting the benefits of diversity
Our team leader encourages all of us to voice our opinions.
Our team leader ensures that all team members are valued for their
contributions.
Our team leader makes sure that everyone’s unique strengths are leveraged.
Leroy et al. 827

Our team leader creates an environment in which we can be ourselves.
Our team leader encourages everyone to be unique.
Cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs
Our team leader enables us to see differences as an advantage rather than as
a disadvantage.
Our team leader helps us to see how differences among us can be an added
value for the team.
Our team leader helps us to solve disagreements to make better decisions
for the team.
Our team leader encourages us to listen to perspectives that are different
than our own.
Our team leader helps us to understand that different views are needed to
understand the bigger picture.
Team-derived inclusion
In this team, I can be my unique self.
In this team, I can be open about my personal opinions and beliefs.
In this team, I can use my unique skills and abilities.
In this team, I am able to fulfill my role in a personal manner.
In this team, I am known for my vigorous individual contribution.
In this team, I feel that I belong.
In this team, I feel connected with the other team members.
In this team, I have a sense of togetherness with the team members.
In this team, I feel there is a sense of connectedness among team members.
In this team, I feel like an outsider (reversed wording).
Team creativity
This team comes up with new and practical ideas in solving problems.
This team easily develops new ways and procedures related to the task.
Confronting problems, this team generates creative solutions.
Appendix B
Comparison of Measurement Models: Study 2
828 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

Factors χ
2
df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
Model 1 Four factors: Harvesting the
benefits of diversity; cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs;
team-derived inclusion
(defined as a higher-order
factor, constituted by
uniqueness and
belongingness); team creativity
472.41 222 .97 .96 .05 .04
Model 2 Three factors: Harvesting the
benefits of diversity and
cultivating value-in-diversity
beliefs defined as a higher-
order factor; team-derived
inclusion (defined as a higher-
order factor); team creativity
839.78 225 .92 .91 .08 .05
Model 3 Five factors: Model 1 with liking
one’s leader; climate for
inclusion (defined as a higher-
order factor, constituted by
equitable employment
practices, integration of
differences, and inclusion in
decision-making)
1400.39 609 .94 .93 .05 .05
Model 4 Four factors: Harvesting the
benefits of diversity; cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs; and
liking one’s leader defined as
one factor; team-derived
inclusion; team creativity;
climate for inclusion
2185.58 618 .87 .86 .08 .05
Model 5 Four factors: Harvesting the
benefits of diversity; cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs;
team-derived inclusion; and
climate for inclusion defined as
one factor; team creativity;
liking one’s leader
4726.63 619 .67 .65 .13 .13
Model 6 Four factors: Harvesting the
benefits of diversity; cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs; and
team-derived inclusion defined as
one factor; team creativity; liking
one’s leader; climate for inclusion
3937.35 620 .74 .72 .11 .10
Leroy et al. 829

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Hannes Leroy https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6954-088X
Footnotes
1. Nembhard and Edmondson’s (2006) three-item measurement of “leader in-
clusiveness”was used as a starting point because this construct relates closest
to our conceptualization of harvesting the benefits of diversity.Were-
formulated wordings to make the items more encompassing in order to not
solely measure whether leaders stimulate voice behavior, but also tap into
whether they elicit all employees’strengths and value their full, unique self.
Furthermore, for the conceptualization of value-in-diversity beliefs, in line
with the conceptualizations of van Knippenberg et al. (2007) and Nishii
(2013), we focused on measuring the development of collective pro-diversity
beliefs aimed at the appreciation and integration of differences.
2. We performed several additional analyses to test the robustness of our findings.
Based on the suggestion of a friendly reviewer, we looked into whether and how
diversity influences our findings. While our focus is on overall inclusion and not
one or more specific forms of diversity, we checked how actual diversity played
a role in our findings. For instance, we looked at to what extent gender diversity,
age diversity, and educational diversity influenced the strength of our relation-
ships. Additionally, we included value diversity using the Schwartz (1999)
framework as an example of a deep-level diversity. We found that our results
hold when controlling for these various types of diversity. Furthermore, we found
that more age diversity and value diversity strengthened the effects of our two
leadership variables on team-derived inclusion (i.e., a three-way interaction ef-
fect). While these are just some samples of diversity measures and many other
deep- and surface-level diversity dimensions could be examined in the context of
inclusion, this lends further support to our model and thinking. Additionally, we
followed the suggestion of a friendly reviewer to check whether our model holds
equally when considering uniqueness and belongingness as separate mediators.
While our theory and empirical data suggest that these two factors are inter-
connected (e.g., the correlation between both is r = .64), we nevertheless checked
how these two variables independently and interactively predict team-derived
inclusion. First, we found no interaction between both variables. Second, we
830 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

found that a test of dual mediation suggested that the effects go mostly through
uniqueness but not through belongingness. While for team creativity this was to
be expected (i.e., you need unique perspectives for team creativity to emerge), this
does not suggest that belongingness was not important as both our theory and data
suggest that uniqueness and belongingness are intertwined processes. Finally, our
results also hold while controlling for the SD in team-derived inclusion, sug-
gesting that the effect of team-derived inclusion is not dependent on agreement
within the team.
3. This model also holds without control variables: the standardized interaction effect
of harvesting the benefits of diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs on
team-derived inclusion is significant (β= .37, p<.01), as is the effect of team-
derived inclusion on team creativity (β=.25,p< .05). Furthermore, at high levels of
cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs (i.e., one SD above the mean of the moderator),
the indirect conditional effect on team creativity is significant (β= .13, p< .05). At
mean and low levels of the moderator, however, the indirect conditional effect is not
significant (β=.08,p= .06 and β= .02, p= .36, respectively).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader
behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The
Leadership Quarterly,15(1), 5-32.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,117(3),
497-529.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis.InK.J.Klein,&S.W.J.Kozlowski
(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace in-
clusion: A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Man-
agement,54(2), 241-264.
Boies, K., Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the
relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The
Leadership Quarterly,26(6), 1080-1094.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,17(5), 475-482.
Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational
leadership: The role of affect. The Leadership Quarterly,16(2), 245-272.
Buengeler, C., Leroy, H., & De Stobbeleir, K. (2018). How leaders shape the impact of
HR’s diversity practices on employee inclusion. Human Resource Management
Review,28(3), 289-303.
Leroy et al. 831

Buengeler, C., Piccolo, R. F., & Locklear, L. R. (2021). LMX differentiation and group
outcomes: A framework and review drawing on group diversity insights. Journal
of Management,47(1), 260-287.
Carmeli, A., Cohen-Meitar, R., & Elizur, D. (2007). The role of job challenge and
organizational identification in enhancing creative behavior among employees in
the workplace. The Journal of Creative Behavior,41, 75-90.
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee
involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psycho-
logical safety. Creativity Research Journal,22(3), 250-260.
Cruz, M. G., Boster, F. J., & Rodr´
ıguez, J. I. (1997). The impact of group size and
proportion of shared information on the exchange and integration of information in
groups. Communication Research,24, 291-313.
Davidson, M. N., & Ferdman, B. M. (2002). A matter of difference. Inclusion: What
can I and my organization do about it? The Industrial-Organizational Psychol-
ogist,39(4), 80-85.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated in-
formation processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and
Social Psychology Review,12(1), 22-49.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the
door really open? Academy of Management Journal,50(4), 869-884.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly,44(2), 350-383.
Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational
leadership and team innovation: integrating team climate principles. Journal of
Applied Psychology,93(6), 1438-1446.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity
perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science
Quarterly,46(2), 229-273.
Ferdman, B. M. (2017). Paradoxes of inclusion: Understanding and managing the
tensions of diversity and multiculturalism. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science,53, 235-263.
Ferdman, B. M., Avigdor, A., Braun, D., Konkin, J., & Kuzmycz, D. (2010). Collective
experience of inclusion, diversity, and performance in work groups. RAM. Revista
de Administração Mackenzie,11(3), 6-26.
Ferdman, B. M., & Davidson, M. N. (2004). Some learning about inclusion: Con-
tinuing the dialogue. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist,41(4), 31-37.
Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (2014). Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion.
New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Forster, J. R. S., Friedman, R. S., Butterbach, E. B., & Sassenberg, K. (2005). Au-
tomatic effects of deviancy cues on creative cognition. European Journal of Social
Psychology,35, 345-359.
George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management
Annals,1, 439-477.
832 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

Goncalo, J. A., Chatman, J. A., Duguid, M. M., & Kennedy, J. A. (2015). Creativity
from constraint? How the political correctness norm influences creativity in
mixed-sex work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly,60, 1-30.
Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,100(1), 96-109.
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention:
Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of
Management Journal,54(1), 73-96.
Grizzle, J. W., Zablah, A. R., Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., & Lee, J. M. (2009).
Employee customer orientation in context: How the environment moderates the
influence of customer orientation on performance outcomes. Journal of Applied
Psychology,94, 1227-1242.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods,1(1), 104-121.
Hirak, R., Peng, A. C., Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2012). Linking leader
inclusiveness to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety
and learning from failures. The Leadership Quarterly,23(1), 107-117.
Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012).
Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s
potential. Journal of Applied Psychology,97(5), 982-996.
Hoever, I. J., Zhou, J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2018). Different strokes for different
teams: The contingent effects of positive and negative feedback on the creativity of
informationally homogeneous and diverse teams. Academy of Management
Journal,61, 2159-2181.
Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. M., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining
diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S.
Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace
diversity (pp. 245-276). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Homan, A. C., Buengeler, C., Eckhoff, R. A., & Voelpel, S. C. (2015). The interplay of
diversity training and diversity beliefs on team creativity in nationality diverse
teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,100(5), 1456-1467.
Homan, A. C., Gündemir, S., Buengeler, C., & van Kleef, G. A. (2020). Leading
diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams. Journal of
Applied Psychology,105(10), 1101-1128.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R.,
& Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to
experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work
groups. Academy of Management Journal,51(6), 1204-1222.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007).
Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and
performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,92(5), 1189-1199.
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. (1986). Moderator variables in leadership
research. Academy of Management Review,11(1), 88-102.
Leroy et al. 833

Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1), 1-55.
Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., Zee, K. I., & Jans, L. (2014). Inclusion: Conceptualization and
measurement. European Journal of Social Psychology,44(4), 370-385.
Janssen, O., & Huang, X. (2008). Us and me: Team identification and individual
differentiation as complementary drivers of team members’citizenship and
creative behaviors. Journal of Management,34(1), 69-88.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of un-
conventional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly,14(4), 475-498.
Jung, D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on
creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal,13(2), 185-195.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disen-
gagement at work. Academy of Management Journal,33(4), 692-724.
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The
promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,94(1), 77-89.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In
W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol.
12, pp. 333-375). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lee, R. M., Draper, M., & Lee, S. (2001). Social connectedness, dysfunctional in-
terpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model.
Journal of Counseling Psychology,48(3), 310-318.
Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C. A., & Leroy, H. (2019). Taking stock of moral approaches
to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership.
Academy of Management Annals,13(1), 148-187.
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2015). Authentic leadership, au-
thentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance. Journal
of Management,41(6), 1677-1697.
Leroy, H., Hoever, I., Vangronsvelt, K., & van den Broeck, A. (2020). There is more
than one “I”in teams. How team averages in authentic living and perspective-
taking personalities relate to team information elaboration and team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology,124(2), 165-176.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002).
A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods,7, 83-104.
Mainemelis, C., Kark, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2015). Creative leadership: A multi-
context conceptualization. Academy of Management Annals,9(1), 393-482.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? Psycho-
logical Science in the Public Interest,6(2), 31-55.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting inter-
actions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin,114(2), 376-390.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural
equation analyses. Psychological Methods,7(1), 64-82.
834 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

Mor Barak, M. E (2014). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace
(3rd edition.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mor Barak, M. E., Luria, G., & Brimhall, K. C. (2021). What leaders say vs. what they
do: Inclusive leadership, policy-practice decoupling, and the anomaly of climate
for inclusion. Group and Organization Management
Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). Chapter 32: Best practices in structural
equation modeling. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods.
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mumford, M. D., & Fried, Y. (2014). Give them what they want or give them what they
need? Ideology in the study of leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
35(5), 622-634.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly,13(6), 705-750.
Muth´
en, L. K., & Muth´
en, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th edition.). Los
Angeles, CA: Muth´
en & Muth´
en.
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader
inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement
efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior,27(7), 941-966.
Nemeth, C. J., & Kwan, J. L. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of
majority vs. minority influence. Social Psychology Quarterly,48, 277-282.
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups.
Academy of Management Journal,56(6), 1754-1774.
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in
diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity
to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology,94(6), 1412-1426.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader
behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and organizational citize. Journal of Management,22(2), 259-298.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 879-903.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Re-
search,42(1), 185-227.
Qu, R., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2015). Transformational leadership and follower cre-
ativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating
role of leader creativity expectations. The Leadership Quarterly,26(2), 286-299.
Randel, A. E., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B., & Shore, L. (2016). Leader
inclusiveness, psychological diversity climate, and helping behaviors. Journal of
Managerial Psychology,31(1), 216-234.
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A.,
& Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes
through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource
Management Review,28(2), 190-203.
Leroy et al. 835

Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in
organizations. Group & Organization Management,31(2), 212-236.
Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy
of Management Perspectives,11, 21-31.
Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. L. (2003). Monkey see monkey do: The in-
fluence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. In L. W. Porter,
H. L. Angle, & R. W. Allen (Eds), Organizational influence processes (2nd
Edition.), pp. 344-361). New York: ME Sharpe.
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to
further performance. Public Personnel Management,43, 1-21.
Schittekatte, M., & Van Hiel, A. (1996). Effects of partially shared information and
awareness of unshared information on information sampling. Small Group Re-
search,27(3), 431-449.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work.
Applied Psychology,48(1), 23-47.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social
and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership
Quarterly,15(1), 33-53.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and con-
textual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of
Management,30(6), 933-958.
Shemla, M., Meyer, B., Greer, L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A Review of perceived diversity
in teams: Does how members perceive their team’s composition impact team
processes and outcomes? Journal of Organizational Behavior,37(1), 89-106.
Shemla, M., & Wegge, J. (2019). Managing diverse teams by enhancing team
identification: The mediating role of perceived diversity. Human Relations,72(4),
755-777.
Shin, S. J., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, J.-Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and
individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Man-
agement Journal,55(1), 197-212.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and crea-
tivity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal,46, 703-714.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related
to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as
a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 1709-1721.
Shore, L. M., & Chung, B. (2021). Work group inclusion: Test of a scale and model.
Group and Organization Management. doi:10.1177/10596011211009683
Shore, L. M., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Jung, D. I., Randel, A. E., &
Singh, G. (2009). Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we
going? Human Resource Management Review,19(2), 117-133.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G.
(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future
research. Journal of Management,37(4), 1262-1289.
836 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression
models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research
Methods,13(3), 456-476.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic
and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.
Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance
and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management,32,
132-157.
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the
creativity and financial performance of organizational teams. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes,118 (1), 4-13.
Swann, W. B., Kwan, V. S. Y., Polzer, J. T., & Milton, L. P. (2003). Fostering group
identification and creativity in diverse groups: The role of individuation and self-
verification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29, 1396-1406.
Taggar, S. (2001). Group composition, creative synergy, and group performance. The
Journal of Creative Behavior,35, 261-286.
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for
managing diversity. Harvard Business Review,74(5), 79-90.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in mul-
tidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of
Management Journal,48, 532-547.
van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., H ¨
agele, S., Guillaume, Y. R. F., & Brodbeck, F. C.
(2008). Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity
beliefs. Human Relations,61(10), 1463-1492.
Van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity
perspective. Applied Psychology,49(3), 357-371.
van Knippenberg, D. (2017). Team innovation. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior,4, 211-233.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group
diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda.
Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 1008-1022.
van Knippenberg, D., & Haslam, S.A. (2003). Realizing the diversity dividend: Exploring
the subtle interplay between identity, ideology, and reality. In S. A. Haslam, D. van
Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing
theory for organizational practice: 61-77. New York: Psychological Press.
van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2007). Unity through diversity:
Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group identification. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,11(3), 207-222.
van Knippenberg, D.L, & Hoever, I.J. (2017). Team diversity and team creativity:
A categorization-elaboration perspective. In R. Reiter-Palmon (Ed.), Team cre-
ativity and innovation: 41–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hoever, I. J (in press). Team innovation and team creativity. In
J. Zhou & E. Rouse (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity and innovation.
Edward Elgar.
Leroy et al. 837

van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual
Review of Psychology,58, 515-541.
van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic-
transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of
Management Annals,7(1), 1-60.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Van Ginkel, W.P. (2021). A diversity mindsets perspective on
inclusive leadership. Group and Organization Management.
van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Homan, A. C. (2013). Diversity mindsets
and the performance of diverse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,121, 183-193.
van Prooijen, J.-W., van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2004). Group belongingness
and procedural justice: Social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psy-
chology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,87(1), 66-79.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J.
(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based
measure†.Journal of Management,34(1), 89-126.
Wang, P., & Rode, J. (2010). Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The
moderating effects of identification with leader and organizational climate. Human
Relations,63, 1105-1128.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support
and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of
Management Journal,40(1), 82-111.
Wilson-Evered, E., H¨
artel, C. E., & Neale, M. (2001). A longitudinal study of work
group innovation: The importance of transformational leadership and morale.
Advances in Health Care Management,2(2), 315-340.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in
production of knowledge. Science,316, 1036-1039.
Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. (2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and
redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior,1, 333-359.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Expanding the scope and impact of organizational
creativity research. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
creativit : 347-368. New York: Erlbaum.
Associate Editor: Lisa Nishii
Submitted Date: June 30, 2020
Revised Submission Date: January 31, 2021
Acceptance Date: February 16, 2021
Author Biographies
Hannes Leroy is an Associate Professor at Rotterdam School of Management. He is
the Academic Director of the Erasmus Center for Leadership.
838 Group & Organization Management 47(4)

Claudia Buengeler is Full Professor and Chair of the section Human Resource
Management and Organization at the Institute of Business of Kiel University in
Germany. She is an adjunct faculty member of Amsterdam Business School of the
University of Amsterdam and an Associate Editor of Organizational Psychology
Review.
Marlies Veestraeten is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at Neoma
Business School. Marlies’research focuses on the antecedents, boundary conditions,
and outcomes of leadership in today’s complex organizational contexts.
Meir Shemla is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at Rotterdam
School of Management, Erasmus University. His work focuses on the impact of team
composition on team performance, and he has particular interest in how diversity in
teams can be leveraged to increase innovation and performance.
Inga J. Hoever is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Rotterdam
School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Her research focuses on
workplace creativity, diversity, and team excellence.
Leroy et al. 839