ArticlePDF Available

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


Abstract and Figures

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.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Special Issue on Inclusive Leadership
Group & Organization Management
2021, Vol. 0(0) 142
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
DOI: 10.1177/10596011211009683
Fostering Team
Creativity Through
Team-Focused Inclusion:
The Role of Leader
Harvesting the Benets
of Diversity and
Value-In-Diversity Beliefs
Hannes Leroy
, Claudia
, Marlies
, Meir Shemla
and Inga J. Hoever
This article advances prior theory on inclusive leadership to better un-
derstand how leaders foster team creativity through membersexperience
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 benets 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 benets
Rotterdam School of Management, Netherlands
Kiel University, Germany
NEOMA Business School, France
Corresponding Author:
Hannes Leroy, Rotterdam School of Management, Burgemeester Oudlaan, Rotterdam 3366BR,
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 benets of diversity posi-
tively relates to team-derived inclusion and indirectly team creativity, if
leaders also cultivated value-in-diversity beliefs. Our model and ndings across
studies are the rst 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.
inclusive leadership, harvesting the benets 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 sufcient 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-
sidersin 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
2Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 specic 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 benets of
diversityby 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 membersdifferent ideas, strengths, and per-
spectives (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010;Nembhard & Edmondson,
2006). Second, leaders can cultivate value-in-diversity beliefsby 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). Specically, for fostering
team-derived inclusion and indirectly, team creativity, harvesting the
benets 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 teams ability to build on unique input toward more creative
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
Leroy et al. 3
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,
artel, & Neale, 2001), partly due to shortcomings in terms of broad
conceptualizations (e.g., van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013;Lemoine et al.,
Our work adds to prior work by offering more precision in our concep-
tualization of inclusive leadership (i.e., harvesting the benets of di-
versity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs). Prior work has already
used the terms leader inclusivenessand inclusive leadershipfocused
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 LeaderMember-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
Figure 1. Hypothesized research model.
4Group & Organization Management 0(0)
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Team-Derived Inclusion: Satisfying Both Uniqueness and
Belongingness Needs
Inclusion has recently been dened as the satisfaction of peoples needs for
uniqueness and belongingness (Shore et al., 2011). Building on Brewers
(1991) optimal distinctiveness theory, Shore and colleagues proposed that
feeling included in ones team entails feeling connected to the collective
(belongingness) while at the same time perceiving oneself as sufciently
distinct from other team members (uniqueness). Specically, individuals tend
to fulll 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, ones work team may be especially relevant, since the
importance of this group membership is continuously reinforced, and most
proximal to individualsdaily work experiences (Shore et al., 2011). Thus,
we conceptualize felt inclusion regarding ones 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 ones 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 ones 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.,
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
Leroy et al. 5
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 membersresources in the team, to benet
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 teamsactivities(Davidson & Ferdman, 2002;Ferdman &
Davidson, 2004;Mor Barak, 2014;Swann, Kwan, Polzer, & Milton, 2003).
Indeed, awareness of ones uniqueness in the team reects a membersinsight
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
membersidentication with the team and willingness to contribute to it (e.g.,
in the form of creative ideas) and lowers membersfeelings 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 membersmotivation
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
6Group & Organization Management 0(0)
(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 othersinput
to the teams goals. This is important, since the relevance of othersinput 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
The Role of Leadership in Promoting Team-Derived Inclusion
Harvesting the benets 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 everyones 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 benets 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 membersdiverse 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 membersexperiences and points of
views that are related to individualsunique self.
By inviting everyones characteristics, talents, and voices across mul-
tiple lines of difference, leaders set the stage for the membersperception of
Leroy et al. 7
being an insider in and valuable contributor to the team (Shore et al., 2011).
However, harvesting the benets of diversity will not necessarily benetfelt
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 benet 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 inuence 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 teamfor instance,
because a variety of experiences, perspectives, and insights enriches the
team and offers resources for adaptive changewill 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).
8Group & Organization Management 0(0)
Hypothesis 2: There is an interactive relationship between harvesting the
benets of diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs with team-
derived inclusion such that the relationship between harvesting the benets
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 benets of diversity and cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs with team creativity.
We conducted three studies to test our hypotheses. Study 1 comprises the
development of a scale to assess the two leader behaviorsharvesting the
benets of diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefshypothesized
to stimulate team creativity via fostering team-derived inclusion. In Study 2,
Leroy et al. 9
we tested our hypotheses within teams of one organization whereas Study 3
served to conrm 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 benets 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).
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 benets of diversity, we used Nembhard
and Edmondsons (2006) three-item measurement of leader inclusivenessas
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 reects 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
membersunique 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 benets of
making decisions that integrate diverse perspectives. Similar to harvesting the
benets of diversity, our measure focused on the leaders impact on the team as
a whole.
We followed Hinkins (1998) deductive approach to develop both scales.
We rst 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 rened iteratively by presenting our denitions (and
10 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 eld), asking those experts to sort the items according to the denitions
provided. That process of matching items with denitions occurred several
Table 1. Pattern Matrix Resulting From Oblique Exploratory Factor Analysis:
Study 1.
Harvesting the
Benets of
Cultivating Value-
In-Diversity Beliefs
Dimension 1: Harvesting the benets of
1. Our team leader encourages all of us
to voice our opinions
2. Our team leader ensures that all team
members are valued for their
3. Our team leader makes sure that
everyones unique strengths are
4. Our team leader creates an
environment in which we can be
5. Our team leader encourages
everyone to be unique
Dimension 2: Cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs
6. Our team leader enables us to see
differences as an advantage rather
than as a disadvantage
7. Our team leader helps us to see how
differences among us can be an added
value for the team
8. Our team leader helps us to solve
disagreements to make better
decisions for the team
9. Our team leader encourages us to
listen to perspectives that are
different than our own
10. Our team leader helps us to
understand that different views are
needed to understand the bigger
Leroy et al. 11
times until all raters agreed that our nal 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 benets of diversity, it is
different in that it focuses on the individual follower rather than the team as
a whole. Furthermore, intellectual stimulationwhile geared toward
promoting individual memberscreativityis not focused on linking
work-related insights to memberspersonal experiences and backgrounds.
Authentic leadership has been linked to follower authenticity or the ex-
pression of ones authentic self at work (Lemoine et al., 2019;Leroy,
Anseel, Garner, & Sels, 2015). In this regard, authentic leadership is more
akin to harvesting the benets of diversity than intellectual stimulation as it
encourages the expression of followers 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 conrmatory factor analysis. To explore the factor structure of
the scales developed to measure harvesting the benets of diversity and
cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs, we collected data from a convenience
sample of 491 employees across 45 for-prot organizations in Belgium. These
organizationsfocal activities include providing consultancy, insurance, or
nancial 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 rst 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
12 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 conrmatory factor analyses (CFA) and estimated the
t of our measurement model to the data using the Mplus statistical package
en & Muth´
en, 1998-2015). The results indicate a good t of the model
to the data (χ
= 158.82; df = 34; p< .001; CFI = .97; TLI = .97; RMSEA = .08;
SRMR = .02) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In addition, this model provided a better t
to the data (Δχ
[1] = 574.17; p= .001) than a model in which both harvesting
the benets of diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs were
combined into one factor (χ
= 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 benets of diversity,cultivating value-in-diversity
beliefs, intellectual stimulation, and authentic leadership. We found that
a model differentiating these factors showed a good t to the data (χ
= 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 benets
of diversity resulted in a worse t(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.
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 ones
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
Leroy et al. 13
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 Conrmatory Factor Analysis:
Study 1.
Harvesting the
Benets of
Cultivating Value-
In-Diversity Beliefs
Dimension 1: Harvesting the benets of
1. Our team leader encourages all of us
to voice our opinions
2. Our team leader ensures that all team
members are valued for their
3. Our team leader makes sure that
everyones unique strengths are
4. Our team leader creates an
environment in which we can be
5. Our team leader encourages
everyone to be unique
Dimension 2: Cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs
6. Our team leader enables us to see
differences as an advantage rather
than as a disadvantage
7. Our team leader helps us to see how
differences among us can be an added
value for the team
8. Our team leader helps us to solve
disagreements to make better
decisions for the team
9. Our team leader encourages us to
listen to perspectives that are
different than our own
10. Our team leader helps us to
understand that different views are
needed to understand the bigger
14 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
other measures) and assured absolute condentiality of the information
provided. In total, 38 teams were included in our nal sample (i.e., a total of
174 [97%] followers and 38 [100%] leaders). Respondentsaverage 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
Harvesting the benets 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 ve
items reective of uniqueness from Janssen and Huang (2008) and ve 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 leadersjudgments 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
Leroy et al. 15
aggregation decision, mean r
was .90 (Mdn =.89)forharvesting the benets
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 benets of diversity and .26 and .29 for cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs
(Bliese, 2000). Analyses of variance (ANOVA) indicated signicant between-
group variance for both variables: F
For team-derived inclusion, we do not a priori expect high levels of
sharedness across all teams. The team-derivedin 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 specic (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 Benets
of Diversity
Cultivating Value-In-
Diversity Beliefs
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
16 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 signicant amount of between-group var-
iance: F
= 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.
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,weconrm a positive and
signicant 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 benets 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.
1. Harvesting the benets 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.
Leroy et al. 17
harvesting,cultivating, and their interaction on team-derived inclusion. In line
with our hypothesis, the relationship of harvesting with team-derived inclusion
was nonsignicant (β=.17; p= .26), but there was a signicant 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
nonsignicant (β=.30;p= .67), partially disconrming Hypothesis 2, whereas
the simple slope at one standard deviation below the mean of the moderator (i.e.,
low cultivating) was signicantly 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 benets of diversity and
cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs on team-derived inclusion: Study 2.
18 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 ones leader 5.38 .79 .11 .07 .01 .86
5. Climate for inclusion 3.98 .52 .07 .20 .13 .20 .92
6. Harvesting the benets 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.
Leroy et al. 19
effect of harvesting on team creativity is negative when cultivating val is low
(indirect effect =.38, CI = .95, .02), but nonsignicant when it is high
(indirect effect = .06; CI = .43, .49).
This only partially conrms our Hypotheses 2 and 3 in that we saw clear
detriments to harvesting without high degrees of cultivating but could not
conrm 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
leaders 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 ndings 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 inuence team-level relationships. Specically, 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 specic to our leader be-
haviors rather than a more general leader appreciation (Nishii & Mayer, 2009).
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
20 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 condentiality.
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 leadersper-
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 organizationsinclusion strategy
and expectations which may inuence their own leader behaviors. We used the
climate for inclusion scale (Nishii, 2013). Items were measured on a ve-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
Leroy et al. 21
aggregation decision, we found a mean r
of .91 (Mdn = .92) for harvesting
the benets 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 benets of diversity and .33 and .72 for cul-
tivating value-in-diversity beliefs (Bliese, 2000). ANOVA indicated signi-
cant amounts of between-group variance for both variables: F
= 3.45,
p< .001, and F
= 3.55, p< .01, respectively. For team-derived in-
clusion, similar to study 2, an ANOVA indicated that there is a signicant
amount of between-group variance (F
= 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 t of the model to the data (χ
= 472.41; df = 222; p< .001; CFI = .97;
TLI = .96; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .04) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In a second CFA,
we estimated the t of a model containing harvesting the benets of diversity
and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs as a higher-order factor. This model
showed a worse t to the data compared to a model in which both leader
behaviors are dened as separate constructs (χ
= 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 ones leader and climate for inclusion. This measurement
model also showed a good t to the data (χ
= 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 items
error term. Overall, the results suggest that our measurement model ts 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 benets of diversity with leader liking in one factor)
systematically showed a worse t 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
22 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 & OLeary-Kelly, 2003). Harvesting the benets 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).
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
t to the data (χ
= 4.15; df =4;p= .37; CFI = .99; TLI = .98; RMSEA =.02;
SRMR = .02). Figure 3 shows the full structural model with standardized path
coefcients. In line with Hypothesis 1, we found a positive and signicant
relationship between team-derived inclusion and leader-rated team creativity
(β= .23; p<.05). Conrming 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 benets of diversity and
team-derived inclusion, we found a signicant 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
coefcients: Study 3. Note. N = 93 teams. p<.05,p< .01. Dotted lines indicate
control variables.
Leroy et al. 23
was positive and signicant (β= .38; p< .01), whereas the simple slope at one
standard deviation below the mean of the moderator was not signicant (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 signicant (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 signicant (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.
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 benets of diversity and
cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs on team-derived inclusion: Study 3.
24 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 ndings revealed that our measure of the two theoretically derived
leader behaviors (harvesting the benets 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 teams creativity (Study 2 and 3); and that a leaders
harvesting the benets 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 benets 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 membersresources 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 benets 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 diversitys benet for teams (Homan
et al., 2020) or achieving inclusion through leader actions. Most importantly,
two of van Knippenberg and van Ginkels (2021) three leadership elements
deserve mentioning here as they underscore similar behaviors as those
highlighted in our dual leader behaviors. Specically, cultivating value-in-
diversity beliefs aligns with the element of advocacy of diversity mindset in
highlighting the promotive potential of differences, and harvesting the benets
Leroy et al. 25
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 benets 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. Specically, 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 benets 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 specically, following a substitutes-for-
leadership reasoning (Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986), an organizations
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
benets 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 inuence 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 reecting belongingness in
teams, such as team identication, 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 unltered
point of view (Forster, Friedman, Butterbach, & Sassenberg, 2005) and that
team cohesion and belongingness stie 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 membersneed for belongingness and uniqueness that enables
creativity in teams, are in line with the recently offered idea that creative ideas
26 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 benets of differences in teams (Sabharwal, 2014). Our
ndings 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 benets 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
teamrather than individualprocesses and outcomes such as team learning
and team performance. The core difference between Nembhard and
Edmondsons (2006) leader inclusiveness and our construct of harvesting
the benets 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 membersstrengths, back-
grounds, and capacitieswhich is the essence of valuing the inherent
differences in team memberswhole 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 specically (van Knippenberg &
Hoever, 2017). As such, the theoretical underpinnings of leading toward
team creativityare rather limited (Wilson-Evered et al., 2001). Scholars have
called for more ne-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
Leroy et al. 27
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Our ndings should be interpreted within the context of this studys 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 benets of diversity and cul-
tivating value-in-diversity beliefs on research that identied 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 benecial 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 ndings in other settings
and contexts and deduct potential additional behaviors conducive to expe-
riencing inclusion.
We found a high correlation between harvesting the benets 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 nding may raise questions regarding the constructsconceptual dis-
tinctiveness. It could be questioned, for instance, whether both inclusive
leader behaviors reect 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
t to the data than models in which they are specied 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 Sitkins (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).
28 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 deates rather than inates interaction effects, making them more difcult 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 ndings
across two studies further increases our condence in the respective ndings.
Future research may replicate our ndings with a longitudinal or experimental
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 benets 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 organizationsability to
innovate and adapt to changing environments, the nding 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 employeestalents and enhancing teamscreativity and
problem-solving ability are the most important reasons for increasing
Leroy et al. 29
workplace diversity (Robinson & Dechant, 1997;Mannix & Neale, 2005).
Our ndings show that team leaders are key actors in shaping inclusive work
environments (Boekhorst, 2015).
Therefore, raising team leadersawareness 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 benets of the inherent
diversity in the workforce (Homan et al., 2007;van Dick et al., 2008;van
Knippenberg et al., 2007,2013).
As todays organizations incorporate an increasingly diverse workforce,
the question arises how the benets of this diversity can be realized.
Following recent research on building inclusive work environments, we
proposed that leaders who harvest the benets of diversity by explicitly
inviting and appreciating the variety of unique inputs from all team
members stimulate team-derived inclusion, dened 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 benecial for team-derived inclusion, and indirectly, team
Appendix A
Overview of Measures: Study 2 and 3
Harvesting the benets 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
Our team leader makes sure that everyones unique strengths are leveraged.
30 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 fulll 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
Leroy et al. 31
Factors χ
Model 1 Four factors: Harvesting the
benets of diversity; cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs;
team-derived inclusion
(dened 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
benets of diversity and
cultivating value-in-diversity
beliefs dened as a higher-
order factor; team-derived
inclusion (dened as a higher-
order factor); team creativity
839.78 225 .92 .91 .08 .05
Model 3 Five factors: Model 1 with liking
ones leader; climate for
inclusion (dened as a higher-
order factor, constituted by
equitable employment
practices, integration of
differences, and inclusion in
1400.39 609 .94 .93 .05 .05
Model 4 Four factors: Harvesting the
benets of diversity; cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs; and
liking ones leader dened as
one factor; team-derived
inclusion; team creativity;
climate for inclusion
2185.58 618 .87 .86 .08 .05
Model 5 Four factors: Harvesting the
benets of diversity; cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs;
team-derived inclusion; and
climate for inclusion dened as
one factor; team creativity;
liking ones leader
4726.63 619 .67 .65 .13 .13
Model 6 Four factors: Harvesting the
benets of diversity; cultivating
value-in-diversity beliefs; and
team-derived inclusion dened as
one factor; team creativity; liking
ones leader; climate for inclusion
3937.35 620 .74 .72 .11 .10
32 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
Declaration of Conicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The author(s) received no nancial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Hannes Leroy
1. Nembhard and Edmondsons (2006) three-item measurement of leader in-
clusivenesswas used as a starting point because this construct relates closest
to our conceptualization of harvesting the benets 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 employeesstrengths 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 ndings.
Based on the suggestion of a friendly reviewer, we looked into whether and how
diversity inuences our ndings. While our focus is on overall inclusion and not
one or more specic forms of diversity, we checked how actual diversity played
a role in our ndings. For instance, we looked at to what extent gender diversity,
age diversity, and educational diversity inuenced 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
Leroy et al. 33
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 benets of diversity and cultivating value-in-diversity beliefs on
team-derived inclusion is signicant (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 signicant (β= .13, p< .05). At
mean and low levels of the moderator, however, the indirect conditional effect is not
signicant (β=.08,p= .06 and β= .02, p= .36, respectively).
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),
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
HRs diversity practices on employee inclusion. Human Resource Management
Review,28(3), 289-303.
34 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 identication 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.
Leroy et al. 35
Goncalo, J. A., Chatman, J. A., Duguid, M. M., & Kennedy, J. A. (2015). Creativity
from constraint? How the political correctness norm inuences 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
inuence 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 diversitys
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.
36 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t 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 identication and individual
differentiation as complementary drivers of team memberscitizenship 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 Iin 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 difculties 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.
Leroy et al. 37
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.
en, L. K., & Muth´
en, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus users guide (7th edition.). Los
Angeles, CA: Muth´
en & Muth´
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 inuence. Social Psychology Quarterly,48, 277-282.
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benets 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 identication 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.
38 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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., & OLeary-Kelly, A. L. (2003). Monkey see monkey do: The in-
uence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. In L. W. Porter,
H. L. Angle, & R. W. Allen (Eds), Organizational inuence processes (2nd
Edition.), pp. 344-361). New York: ME Sharpe.
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufcient? 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 teams 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
identication: The mediating role of perceived diversity. Human Relations,72(4),
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.
Leroy et al. 39
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,
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2012). Effects of team knowledge management on the
creativity and nancial 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
identication and creativity in diverse groups: The role of individuation and self-
verication. 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 identication. 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 identication: 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 identication. 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: 4160. 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.
40 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
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 identication 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.
Leroy et al. 41
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
Marlies Veestraeten is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior at Neoma
Business School. Marliesresearch focuses on the antecedents, boundary conditions,
and outcomes of leadership in todays 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.
42 Group & Organization Management 0(0)
... Our review found a limited landscape regarding the influence of sponsorship on UIM cohorts, as only two of 16 studies directly addressed this phenomenon. A diverse workforce is critically important for improving patient care, 38 creative work, 39 and scholarship. 40 Mentorship helps to support increased diversity, [41][42][43] but the goal goes beyond increasing diversity to supporting more equitable opportunities for career advancement, which many of the articles in the current review suggest requires, or at the very least, is significantly facilitated by sponsorship. ...
Full-text available
Sponsorship describes a set of actions wherein an influential champion ( sponsor ) uses their position to actively support a colleague’s career by helping them gain visibility, recognition, and/or positions. There is growing awareness of the importance of sponsorship for career advancement in academic medicine, particularly for women and those who are historically underrepresented and excluded in medicine (UIM). This scoping review examines the current landscape of evidence, and knowledge gaps, on sponsorship as it relates to career advancement in academic medicine for women and UIM faculty . We searched peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (WoS) over the past 50 years (from 1973 through July 2023). Sixteen studies were included in the final review. We found relative consensus on sponsorship definition and value to career advancement. Heterogeneity in study design limited our ability to directly compare study outcomes. All included studies focused on gender differences in sponsorship: two of four quantitative studies found men were more likely to receive sponsorship, one reported no gender differences, and one was insufficiently powered. All but one of the qualitative studies reported gender differences, with women less likely to access or be identified for sponsorship. The mixed-methods studies suggested sponsorship may vary by career stage. Only two studies analyzed sponsorship for UIM populations. The existing data are inconclusive regarding best ways to measure and assess sponsorship, what institutional support (e.g., structured programs, formal recognition, or incentives for sponsorship) should look like, and at what career stage sponsorship is most important. Addressing this knowledge gap will be critically important for understanding what sponsorship best practices, if any, should be used to promote equity in career advancement in academic medicine. We advocate for commitment at the institutional and national levels to develop new infrastructure for transparently and equitably supporting women and UIM in career advancement.
... Several empirical studies have shown that companies with effective diversity management generate bottom line returns (Richard 2000; Barnett and Salomon 2006; Ely and Thomas 2020). Sharing information and fostering constructive conflict management are the keys to proving the value of diversity (Cox 1991;Herring 2009;Leroy et al. 2022). Managing diversity is premised upon recognizing diversity and differences as positive attributes of an organization rather than as problems to be solved (Thompson 1977;Bunderson and Sutcliffe 2002). ...
Full-text available
This study aimed to investigate the current status of the Sustainable Workplace Equality Policy (SWEP) in an emerging country—Kuwait—and how it impacts firms’ financial and market performance. The study included companies listed in the Kuwait Boursa (Boursa Kuwait is the operator of the Kuwait Stock Exchange) in the period between 2012 and 2020. A disclosure index was prepared for SWEP based on guidelines provided by a combination of various sources and standards such as the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) standard, S&P global corporate sustainability assessment, Dow Jones sustainability index, United Nations global compact, and KPMG sustainability reporting standards. Time series regression analysis was used to examine the study hypotheses. The analysis revealed a strong positive relationship between the SWEP disclosure and firm measures of financial performance. The results indicate that SWEP is value-relevant and affects firms’ market value, suggesting that investors should consider firms’ disclosure of the SWEP when making investment decisions. The results of the current study are of interest to several stakeholders, especially investors and policymakers. Specifically, the study is relevant to the Kuwaiti Government, which has defined a clear path for sustainable growth with the Vision 2035/New Kuwait that is aimed at transforming the country into a financial and commercial hub for the region by 2035.
... For instance, teams with deep-level variety are better at problem-solving, creativity, and invention (Hoever et al., 2010). They are also more coordinated and adept at finishing repetitive tasks (Leroy et al., 2022), and thus, a source of value within B2B relationships. ...
Full-text available
This paper draws on social exchange and social capital theories to explore knowledge-sharing behavior with culturally diverse teams from business-to-business (B2B) partners. We use two experimental studies to examine the direct effects of cultural diversity between B2B partners and its indirect effects through perceived morality on their knowledge-sharing behavior, along with the moderating effect of B2B relationship orientation on the link between cultural diversity and their KSB. Using a behavioral measure of knowledge-sharing behavior, this paper extends the B2B relationships literature by highlighting the value that intercultural relationships bring to these relationships. In addition, the results provide managers with a range of strategies in managing culturally diverse teams, such as leveraging their B2B relationship orientation directed towards culturally diverse teams from partner firms to improve knowledge sharing with them.
... In work situations, members may tend to rely on one another to accomplish tasks. Studies in both organizational and laboratory settings have revealed that diversity dramatically affects the experiences of group members (Leroy, et al., 2022;Patrício, & Franco, 2022). ...
Full-text available
The optimization of corporate processes in a demographically diversified enclave as Nigeria was the intent of this Paper. Despite the heightened expectations of firms in the productive sectors of the economy, not much appears to have been accomplished in Nigeria, a country with many diversely talented people with multifarious levels of ingenuity. To fill the apparent lacuna in literature nd constructively make contributions to the research areas of diversity and workplace optimization, primary data was gathered via a survey tool with a scale akin to Likert's 5-point scale. Information was gathered from forty-six respondents, representing the firms established for productive purposes in two South-South states in Nigeria. The analysed data using the Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficient at the 0.01 level of significance revealed that firms do not operate at optimal levels due to ineffective management of surface and deep-level diversity. It was suggested that managers should make it imperative that workers are absolutely unconcerned about issues of diversity as stated in this paper for maximum optimization of corporate processes and outcomes.
... From the expert interviews, one consistent finding was that it is important to foster innovative behavior by encouraging the sharing and acceptance of new ideas and by building teams to create trust. This finding was in concurrence with the studies of Leroy et al. [78] and Roye [79]. In large organizations, however, it can often be difficult to create an environment where ideas can be freely expressed and creativity can flourish. ...
Full-text available
Organizations thrive on the innovative behavior of their personnel, but the specific factors that influence such behavior are not widely established, especially in the Thai context. An examination of the literature reveals that the knowledge management (KM) process, which has its basis in the process of knowledge creation known as the SECI process, serves to promote innovative behavior and is a key driver of competitive advantage within innovative organizations. This research study sought to determine which factors account for success in innovation, and to establish an assessment system to evaluate employee innovation. The study sample comprised 500 employees from companies operating in the technology sector. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out, and an eight-factor model was formulated on the basis of the available data. The eight factors in the model were determined to have a significant influence on the success of innovative behavior observed in Thai companies. The relevant factors comprised Sharing of knowledge (SK), Self-efficacy (SE), Problem solving skills (PS), Collaboration ability (CA), Culture of innovation (CI), Organizational support (OS), Culture of learning (CL), and Executive leadership (EL). Within the organizational context, the findings reveal the statistically significant contribution of Sharing of knowledge, Culture of innovation, Organizational support, and Self-efficacy in the promotion of innovative behavior. The study results may prove helpful for organizations wishing to assess the innovative capabilities of their staff, while the success factors may be implemented within organizations through the practical application of an assessment system. Also, by filling a research gap in the literature review, this work will be beneficial to academics and researchers in order to better promote innovative behavior. Doi: 10.28991/HIJ-2023-04-01-012 Full Text: PDF
... They should also build an inclusive team where members achieve belongingness and uniqueness simultaneously. 88 2628 unique experiences and perspectives to the team, both task-related and personal. For employees who have yet to work as a team, raising the awareness of positive regard and mutuality can be constructive in inviting virtual collaborations. ...
Full-text available
Purpose: Moqi can help team members facilitate communication without all interlocutors present, so the researchers speculate it can be an efficient communication tool for virtual teams to compensate for its lack of synchronous communication and in-person contact. However, the only study on the predictors of team members' moqi believed that shared understandings could only arise from team tasks. Based on social exchange theory, the current study emphasizes the social and emotional benefits exchanged among team members and explores moqi-making among virtual team members through a lens of relationship-building. Methods: With a two-wave time-lagged survey design, a total of 381 team members from 86 virtual teams in China participated in the study. Hierarchical regression analysis was performed to test the hypotheses. Results: Results confirmed that virtual team members' empathy is conducive to their experiences of high-quality interpersonal relationships (HQIR) and moqi. Relationship closeness positively moderates the link between empathy and experiences of HQIR and the mediating effect. Conclusion: This study helps unveil the significance of compassionate communication and life-giving connections in cultivating virtual team members' moqi and offers meaningful insights for facilitating virtual collaborations.
Full-text available
Understanding the impact that an online work environment poses for the inclusion of migrants and other international workers has become a highly relevant issue due to increasing labor shortage in the global business environment. In this regard, international inclusiveness scholarship has focused on the role of cultural and linguistic differences for organizational integration of foreign nationality minorities but has rarely considered the extent to which this is taking place through computer-mediated interaction. Simultaneously, virtual work research has delved on the social disengagement that is prominent in online work but without explicit attention to its effect on inclusive organizational practices. We, therefore, integrate inclusiveness and virtual work theories to conceptualize how migrants’ integration into the MNC as a global workplace is affected by the online environment. These insights lead to theoretical and practical advances in the conversation about cultural and linguistic differences in international business research suggesting that the online environment can have both positive and negative consequences for organizational inclusion of migrants.
Full-text available
Introduction Drawing upon upper echelon theory and the resource-based view, this study employs a moderated mediation model to investigate the moderating role and underlying mechanisms of digital transformation in the influence of top management teams (TMT) on corporate green innovation. Methods Our analysis of panel data from 19,155 Chinese A-share listed companies (2011–2020) demonstrates that TMT career experience heterogeneity has a positive effect on green innovation, a relationship that is further strengthened by digital transformation. Results This study shows the role of digital transformation in amplifying the effects of TMT diversity on green innovation and the crucial role of industry-academia-research collaboration as a mediator. Heterogeneity analysis highlights that non-state-owned enterprises (non-SOEs) show more agility than state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in leveraging heterogeneous TMT to drive green innovation. Conversely, green innovation in SOEs benefits more from digital transformation, which includes both its direct and indirect effects of digital transformation. Enterprises located in non-Yangtze River Economic Belt regions benefit more from digital transformation, demonstrating the importance of a balanced distribution of digital resources. Discussion This study provides novel insights into leveraging inclusive leadership and digital capabilities to enhance ecological sustainability. This study underscores the potential of diversified TMTs and digitalization technology integration to catalyze green innovation, which is critical for environmentally responsible transformation.
Full-text available
The objective of the study was to discover the relationship between LDMs and OE. The study is based on findings from semi-structured interviews, carried out in Autumn 2023, with ten informants, from ten different organizations as interest, public and private organizations including construction company in Norway. Three of the interviews were done in face-to-face meetings at the informants' offices, and the rest is done using a digital communication service (TEAMS) while the informants were at their organizational offices. Content analysis was employed for both inductive and deductive approaches for understanding and analyzing the data. The informants were asked in-depth questions for defining LDMs and the relationship between LDMs and diversity work to OE. The findings were transcribed through listening and reading the interviews several times to get the accuracy of the words of respondents. The empirical findings indicate the LDMs, and OE are closely related, particularly to the organizational leaders with growth mindsets. Furthermore, LDMs are defined as the leader´s willingness to create an inclusive organizational environment where everyone is accepted, and respected and their differences are encouraged as an important method for achieving OE. It could be beneficial for leaders to possess a diversity mindset as it enables them to recognize diversity as a significant resource for increasing OE. Achieving inclusivity and equity is associated with prioritizing diversity and inclusion at all levels of leadership, by addressing gender representation, and cultural differences, and emphasizing women in higher leadership positions. Lack of awareness, knowledge, and experience on ARP, 2020 was identified among the leaders in the study, while most of the leaders in the study mentioned lack of diversity policy, recruitment, and diversity monitoring strategies. Fostering growth mindsets are useful for leaders to approach and accept diversity as differences in gender, age, and ethnicity to cultivate differences to achieve OE and maintain an inclusive organizational environment. Keywords Leaders´ Diversity Mindsets, Organizational effectiveness, inclusion, diversity. Abbreviations Leaders´ Diversity Mindsets LDMs, Organizational Effectiveness OE og Diversity in Organizational Structure DOS.
Full-text available
Inclusion is increasingly recognized as a critical leadership issue, yet research points to effectiveness variability among diversity and inclusion initiatives, indicative of potential policy-practice decoupling. Drawing on climate theory, we develop supervisors’ inclusive leadership and climate for inclusion and introducing CEO’s inclusive leadership and group diversity as moderators. To gain a deep understanding of decoupling, we use a multilevel approach and include in our model both top level leadership (CEOs), where espoused policies are determined, and group level leadership (supervisor), where enacted behaviors are experienced. We offer a novel perspective on climate theory for inclusion, which we have identified as “the anomaly of climate for inclusion.” Unlike other organizational climate facets, inclusion climate is shaped not only by the shared experiences of group members but also by their identities. Individuals from minority or underrepresented groups might experience decoupling in ways that are similar to other members from the same identity group even if they belong to different work groups. Our model, therefore, explains the process in which leaders create inclusive climate and point to boundary conditions in the process. We focus on two climate indicators: climate level and climate strength, and indicate that both are essential for understanding inclusion climate. Our conceptual model suggests that truly inclusive leaders would succeed at minimizing policy-practice coupling as perceived by all group members, not just historically dominant or high-status members. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
Full-text available
In this review, we address inconsistencies and a lack of clarity in the study of leader-member exchange (LMX) differentiation and group outcomes. We do so by drawing on another highly visible group dispersion literature in the management domain, group diversity, based on the recognition that LMX quality is a characteristic on which group members vary. Utilizing insights from Harrison and Klein’s typology of group diversity constructs, we introduce a framework that specifies the meaning and shape of three variations of differentiated leader-member relationships in groups and connects each construct with implications in terms of theorizing and measurement. Specifically, our framework conceptualizes LMX differentiation as LMX separation (dispersion in LMX relationships as disagreement or opposition regarding an opinion, perception, or position), LMX variety (dispersion in LMX relationships as distinctiveness in kind, source, or category), and LMX disparity (dispersion in LMX relationships as inequality in concentration of valued social assets or resources). We then apply this framework to conduct a systematic review of the LMX differentiation literature with particular attention to alignment among a study’s descriptions of the construct, application of theory, expected group outcomes, and construct measurement. Finally, we offer recommendations for future research and for applying our framework to enhance reliability, validity, and generalizability in studies of LMX differentiation and group outcomes.
Full-text available
Is it wise to be authentic, that is, to express your inner thoughts and feelings, in a team context? Although authenticity can be argued to benefit teamwork as authentic team members contribute their unique perspectives, it can also hinder teamwork if those unique perspectives are not heard and integrated. Using theory on groups as information processors, we propose that when team members both contribute their own unique perspectives (team mean authentic living), and try to understand each other's contributions (team mean perspective taking), a process of information elaboration occurs at the team level, which in turn leads to team performance. Study 1 tested these assumptions in 67 teams of students (N = 247), whereas Study 2 used 37 teams of employees (N = 194). Results support the hypothesized interaction between team mean authentic living and team mean perspective taking on team information elaboration such that the effects were positive when perspective taking was high but negative when it was low. In terms of team performance, although team information elaboration consistently predicted team performance in both studies, Study 1 could not confirm the hypothesized indirect effects, whereas Study 2 confirmed only the hypothesized positive indirect effect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Full-text available
Moral forms of leadership such as ethical, authentic, and servant leadership have seen a surge of interest in the 21st century. The proliferation of morally-based leadership approaches has resulted in theoretical confusion and empirical overlap that mirror substantive concerns within the larger leadership domain. Our integrative review of this literature reveals connections with moral philosophy that provide a useful framework to better differentiate the specific moral content (i.e., deontology, virtue ethics, and consequentialism) that undergirds ethical, authentic, and servant leadership respectively. Taken together, this integrative review clarifies points of integration and differentiation among moral approaches to leadership and delineates avenues for future research that promise to build complementary rather than redundant knowledge regarding how moral approaches to leadership inform the broader leadership domain.