European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480

Daftar isi tersedia di ScienceDirect

Jurnal Manajemen Eropa

beranda jurnal: www.elsevier .com / cari / emj

Kepemimpinan inklusif dan inovasi tim: Peran suara tim dan tekanan kinerja

Qingyan Ye Sebuah , * , Duanxu Wang b , Weixiao Guo c

Sebuah Dosen Universitas Zhejiang Gongshang, Sekolah Manajemen, Universitas Zhejiang Gongshang, 18 Xuezheng Street, Jianggan Distract, Hangzhou,

310018, PR China
b Sekolah Manajemen, Universitas Zhejiang, PR China

c Universitas Ning Bo, PR China

articleinfo abstrak

Sejarah artikel: Dalam lingkungan bisnis yang kompleks dan berubah dengan cepat saat ini, inovasi tim semakin penting untuk kelangsungan hidup dan
Diterima 27 Februari 2017 Diterima kesuksesan organisasi. Meskipun literatur yang relevan menyoroti pentingnya kepemimpinan dalam inovasi tim, penelitian sebelumnya
dalam bentuk revisi 8 Januari 2019
terutama berfokus pada kepemimpinan transformasional dan memberikan hasil yang tidak konsisten. Untuk mengatasi kekosongan ini, studi ini
mengintegrasikan teori penetapan tujuan ke dalam kerangka kerja input-proses-output dan mengusulkan model mediasi yang dimoderasi untuk
Diterima 24 Januari 2019
memeriksa hubungan antara kepemimpinan inklusif dan inovasi tim. Hasil analisis regresi hirarkis dari dua survei berbasis fi Studi lapangan di
Tersedia online 25 Januari 2019
Cina menunjukkan bahwa suara tim memediasi hubungan antara kepemimpinan inklusif dan inovasi tim dan tekanan kinerja memoderasi
hubungan langsung antara kepemimpinan inklusif dan suara tim serta hubungan tidak langsung antara kepemimpinan inklusif dan inovasi tim
Kata kunci:
melalui suara tim sedemikian rupa sehingga hubungan itu terjalin. lebih kuat saat tekanan kinerja tinggi.
Kepemimpinan yang inklusif

Inovasi tim
Suara tim
Tekanan kinerja
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. Semua hak dilindungi undang-undang.

1. Perkenalan
Inovasi telah lama dikenal sebagai hal penting untuk kelangsungan hidup dan kesuksesan
organisasi ( Amabile, 1988; Jiang & Chen, 2018; Zacher & Rosing, 2015 ). Meskipun inovasi pada
individu dan fi tingkat rm telah menerima banyak perhatian dalam literatur yang ada ( Chen, Zheng,
Yang, & Bai, 2016; Damanpour & Schneider, 2006 ; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009 ), jumlah studi yang
meneliti inovasi tingkat tim agak kecil ( Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008; Tang &
hubungan antara kepemimpinan transformasional dan inovasi tim ( Rosing et al., 2011 ). Satu
Naumann, 2016 ). Ini sangat disayangkan karena “ tim bisa menjadi sarang kreativitas dan inovasi ”( Pirola-Merlo
& Mann, 2004 , hal. 255), dan dalam menghadapi lingkungan bisnis yang kompleks, dinamis, dan
kompetitif saat ini, organisasi semakin mengandalkan tim sebagai blok bangunan utama mereka
untuk mencapai inovasi dan memberikan hasil yang superior ( Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Lyubovnikova,
Legood, Turner, & Mamakouka, 2017 ). Oleh karena itu, tidak mengherankan bahwa membina dan
meningkatkan inovasi dalam tim baru-baru ini muncul sebagai topik yang sangat penting dalam teori
dan praktik ( Jiang & Chen, 2018;
Rosing, Frese, & Bausch, 2011; Tang & Naumann, 2016 ).
Mengingat penekanannya pada inspirasi, perubahan, dan kreativitas, kepemimpinan
transformasional paling menarik perhatian dalam literatur inovasi dan telah dibahas dan
dikonseptualisasikan sebagai pendorong inovasi tim ( Jiang & Chen, 2018; Keller, 2006 ). Namun,
terlepas dari argumen teoritis yang kuat, studi empiris tentang hubungan antara kepemimpinan
transformasional dan inovasi tim menghasilkan hasil yang beragam (misalnya, Jaussi & Dionne, 2003;
Li, Mitchell, & Boyle, 2016 ). Sebuah meta-analisis juga menipu fi tingkat variasi yang tinggi dalam
penjelasan untuk hasil yang kontradiktif ini mungkin bahwa kepemimpinan transformasional adalah
konstruksi multifaset yang mencakup banyak perilaku yang mungkin mendorong dan menghambat
inovasi tim ( Bass & Riggio, 2006; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003 ). Speci fi Biasanya, sementara
pemimpin transformasional menetapkan harapan untuk menjadi kreatif, mereka juga meningkatkan
ketergantungan karyawan pada pemimpin, sehingga membuat karyawan lebih pasif dan kurang
proaktif dan mengurangi kesediaan mereka untuk terlibat dalam perilaku proaktif seperti inovasi ( Kark
et al., 2003; Li et al., 2016 ). Dalam hal ini, kepemimpinan transformasional cenderung menjadi
semacam '' pedang bermata dua '' sehubungan dengan inovasi tim.

* Penulis yang sesuai.

Alamat email: tina3521@hotmail.com (Q. Ye).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.01.006
0263-2373 / © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. Semua hak dilindungi undang-undang.
 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480
Akibatnya, beberapa sarjana menyimpulkan bahwa kepemimpinan transformasional sifatnya terlalu
luas untuk dispesifikasi fi secara berkala mempromosikan inovasi tim dan menganjurkan model
kepemimpinan yang lebih tepat untuk inovasi tim ( Han, Luo, & Zhong, 2016; Rosing et al., 2011;
Zacher & Rosing, 2015 ). Oleh karena itu, fi Tujuan pertama dari studi ini adalah untuk mengatasi
masalah yang penting namun relatif kurang dipelajari ini dengan bergerak melampaui studi tentang
kepemimpinan transformasional dan memeriksa efek dari yang lebih spesifik. fi c Bentuk gaya
kepemimpinan, yaitu kepemimpinan inklusif, pada inovasi tim. Kepemimpinan inklusif digambarkan
sebagai pemimpin yang menunjukkan keterbukaan, aksesibilitas, dan ketersediaan dalam interaksi
mereka dengan karyawan ( Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006 ) dan merupakan kepemimpinan yang
menekankan perilaku pemimpin yang partisipatif dan terbuka ( Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010 ).
Perilaku partisipatif dan keterbukaan ini mengirimkan sinyal yang jelas bahwa inovasi diterima dan
dihargai ( Hollander, 2009 ). Oleh karena itu, dibandingkan dengan kepemimpinan transformasional,
kepemimpinan inklusif mungkin merupakan kepemimpinan yang lebih substantif dan menjanjikan
yang secara langsung dan konsisten kondusif untuk inovasi tim.
Selain itu, teori inovasi tim terkini menyoroti pentingnya proses tim dalam inovasi tim dan
menyarankan bahwa studi inovasi tim tidak akan lengkap tanpa memahami proses tim terkait ( Hülsheger,
Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Jiang & Chen, 2018; Lyubovnikova dkk., 2017 ). Namun, sejauh
pengetahuan kami, proses tim seperti itu yang mendasari pengaruh kepemimpinan pada inovasi tim
belum diartikulasikan dengan jelas ( Kearney & Gebert, 2009; Tang & Naumann, 2016 ). Oleh karena
itu, berdasarkan kerangka kerja input-proses-output, tujuan kedua dari studi ini adalah untuk
menjelaskan bagaimana kepemimpinan inklusif mempengaruhi inovasi tim. Speci fi Kadang-kadang,
kami memprediksi suara tim itu, yang de fi sejauh mana anggota tim memberikan saran konstruktif
untuk perbaikan, berbagi ide baru, dan mendiskusikan masalah atau potensi masalah ( Walumbwa,
Morrison, & Christensen, 2012 ), berfungsi sebagai proses tim penting yang mentransmisikan
kepemimpinan inklusif ke inovasi tim.
Apalagi teori-teori seperti teori kontingensi ( Fiedler, 1971 )
dan teori kepemimpinan situasional ( Hersey & Blanchard, 1969 ) berbagi premis bahwa
kepemimpinan adalah konstruksi sosial yang tidak dapat sepenuhnya dipahami dalam isolasi dari
konteks tempatnya berada. Oleh karena itu, untuk memperoleh kesimpulan yang andal, penelitian ini
mengkaji lebih lanjut apakah tekanan kinerja modi fi e dampak hubungan inklusif pada suara tim dan
inovasi tim berdasarkan teori penetapan tujuan. Tekanan kinerja, yaitu de fi ned sebagai serangkaian
faktor yang dipaksakan secara eksternal yang meningkatkan kepentingan dan tuntutan bagi tim untuk
memberikan hasil kolektif yang superior ( Gardner, 2012 ), tersebar luas dan hampir tak terhindarkan
dalam lingkungan organisasi yang kompetitif dan serba cepat saat ini dan telah terbukti signifikan fi secara
aktif mempengaruhi perilaku organisasi ( Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009; Zhang, Jex, Peng, & Wang,
2016 ). Mengidentifikasi faktor kontekstual seperti itu dalam penelitian tentang kepemimpinan inklusif
sangat penting untuk pemahaman komprehensif tentang keefektifannya.
Untuk meringkas, tujuan utama dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengklarifikasi secara konseptual
dan secara empiris memeriksa pertanyaan inti tentang apakah, bagaimana, dan kapan
kepemimpinan inklusif dikaitkan dengan inovasi tim. Dengan mengusulkan dan menguji model
mediasi yang dimoderasi dari hubungan antara kepemimpinan inklusif dan inovasi tim yang
menggabungkan suara tim sebagai mediator dan tekanan kinerja sebagai moderator (lihat Gambar 1 ),
penelitian ini dimaksudkan untuk memperluas literatur yang ada dengan beberapa cara. Pertama,
dengan berangkat dari praktik umum ilmiah sebelumnya yang memperlakukan kepemimpinan
transformasional sebagai anteseden dominan inovasi tim dan berfokus pada eksplorasi kekuatan
prediktif kepemimpinan inklusif untuk inovasi tim, penelitian ini berkontribusi pada pengembangan
dan pengembangan tim. fi nement literatur yang ada tentang hubungan antara kepemimpinan dan
inovasi tim dan jawaban
469
panggilan untuk pemeriksaan lebih dalam tentang inklusivitas pemimpin dalam organisasi ( Carmeli
dkk., 2010; Uhl-Bien, 2006 ). Kedua, dengan mengambil kerangka kerja input-proses-output, studi ini
unik dalam membuka kotak hitam yang mendasari hubungan antara kepemimpinan inklusif dan
inovasi tim dari perspektif suara tim. Fokus pada peran kepemimpinan inklusif dalam
mengembangkan proses tim yang berbeda yang memfasilitasi inovasi menanggapi panggilan
baru-baru ini untuk penelitian lebih lanjut untuk memfasilitasi pemahaman yang lebih baik tentang
proses integratif yang berasal dari kepemimpinan dan mengarah pada kinerja inovatif yang efektif ( Jiang
& Chen, 2018; Rosing et al., 2011 ). Selain itu, dengan menentukan suara tim sebagai mekanisme
mediasi tingkat tim yang penting di mana kepemimpinan inklusif mempromosikan inovasi tim, studi ini
memperkaya aliran penelitian yang muncul tentang pentingnya perilaku suara di tingkat tim dan
memajukan pengetahuan kita tentang anteseden dan konsekuensi suara tim. Ketiga, dengan
mengintegrasikan teori penetapan tujuan ke dalam kerangka kerja input-proses-output dan
mengkonseptualisasikan tekanan kinerja sebagai suatu tanda fi Jika tidak ada faktor situasional dalam
model, penelitian ini membahas pertanyaan penting tentang kapan kepemimpinan inklusif lebih
penting dan memperkaya penelitian kepemimpinan inklusif sebelumnya yang sebagian besar
mengabaikan analisis moderator.
2. Latar belakang teori dan pengembangan hipotesis
2.1. Kepemimpinan inklusif dan inovasi tim
Inovasi tim adalah de fi ned as the generation and implementation of novel ideas, procedures, or
processes within a team, which are useful to the team ( West, 1990 ). It is a complex process that does
not simply occur but that requires the commitment of key and strategic resources ( Martins &
Terblanche, 2003 ), as well as the autonomy for idea generation and creative problem solving ( Zhou,
1998 ). Therefore, the degree of support and encouragement a leader provides to team members to
take initiative and explore innovative solutions is likely to in fl uence the degree of actual team
innovation ( Jiang & Chen, 2018; Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Zacher & Rosing, 2015 ). Inclusive
leaders perceive their role in terms of support and assistance as opposed command and control, and
offer team members the necessary resources, freedom, independence, and discretion to perform their
work ( Carmeli et al., 2010; Hollander, 2009 ); therefore, inclusive leaders can signi fi-
cantly improve team innovation. In addition, inclusive leaders are crucial for creating an innovative
team because they can increase the inherent motivation of team members by showing concern about
the interests, expectations, and feelings of team members and by being available and accessible to
team members' needs for achievement, development, and growth ( Carmeli et al., 2010; Hollander,
2009 ). At the same time, as a kind of relational leadership, inclusive leadership is effective for the
development of strong emotional links and interpersonal relationships with team members by
practicing socio-emotional support behaviors ( Hollander, 2009 ). This emotional attachment and
high-quality exchange relationships may be another innovative-enhancing force in teams ( Mumford,
Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002; Zhou & George, 2003 ). Moreover, as was previously discussed, one
de fi ning characteristic of inclusive leadership is openness. Inclusive leaders recognize and respect
individual differences between team members, invite team members to express their opinions and
concerns, listen sincerely to team members' ideas and suggestions, and encourage team members to
try different approaches without worrying that they might be criticized and punished ( Carmeli et al.,
2010; Hollander, 2009 ). By doing so, inclusive leadership ensures that all team members feel
recognized and appreciated in their uniqueness and differences ( Hollander, 2009 ); this will reduce the
pressure of maintaining consensus and, thus, increase the degree to
470 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480
Performance Pressure
Inclusive Leadership
Fig. 1. The research model.
which team members generate, promote, and realize new ideas. Some studies have demonstrated
that in comparison to other leadership styles, this very speci fi c leader behavior of openness sends the
strongest signal that different and alternate ideas are welcome ( Detert & Burris, 2007 ); thus, team
members are more likely to develop creative ideas and engage in innovative activities. Furthermore,
because team innovation is not an individual act but a collective achievement, it not only relies on the
motivation and skills of the team members but also depends on whether the team has a climate that
supports innovation ( Mumford et al., 2002 ). By modeling the norm of openness, inclusive leadership
shape and maintain a favorable work environment and culture norm in teams that are characterized
by an openness for different perspectives and challenges and a tolerance for diversities and
uncertainties; this is important for provoking team members to generate creative solutions and can,
thus, lead teams to perform innovatively ( Carmeli et al., 2010 ). Therefore, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H1. Inclusive leadership is positively associated with team innovation.
2.2. The mediating role of team voice
There are two inherent characteristics of voice behavior: discretionary ( Van Dyne, Cummings, &
Parks, 1995 ) and potentially risky ( Detert & Burris, 2007 ). Therefore, there are two core beliefs
underlying the decision of whether to engage in voice behavior ( Detert & Trevino, 2010; Edmondson,
2003 ). One is safe, whether one believes that one's voice behavior will not be punished; the other is
ef fi cacy, whether one believes that one's voice will be valued ( Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2011 ).
In this regard, by emphasizing openness, accessibility, and availability in their interactions with
followers, inclusive leadership is likely to affect both of these core beliefs in a manner that would
facilitate a high level of team voice.
First, inclusive leaders who are open to their subordinates' ideas and suggestions and
encouraging them to express their opinions are likely to develop a safe environment that can ensure
team members that negative consequences such as punishment or blame will not result from their
challenging behavior ( Detert & Burris, 2007; Edmondson, 2003 ); thus, it can alleviate team members'
concerns of the potential costs and risks of voice behavior andmake them feel free to offer their
opinions and ideas ( Detert & Burris, 2007; Edmondson, 2003 ). Similarly, when inclusive leaders are
available and accessible to team members, the uncertainty and anxiety of team members are
minimized ( Hollander, 2009 ), thus allowing them to shed their disguises, share information openly,
and express their true thoughts and opinions more comfortably ( Walumbwa et al., 2012 ). More
importantly, by modeling the norm of openness, inclusive leaders may spread this norm throughout
the whole team due to a leader's modeling effects; thus, team
Team Voice Team Innovation
members are not only more likely to voice themselves but are also more likely to allowother
teammembers to express their ideas and opinions ( Cropanzano & Walumbwa, 2010 ). As a result,
inclusive leadership is likely to form a strong voice-supportive context that will facilitate team voice.
Second, because another barrier to team voice is teammembers' lack of conviction that their input is
valued and desired by others ( Van Dyne et al., 1995 ), the affective forces, such as feelings of
beingworthwhile and obligation, may encourage voice ( Liu, Zhu, & Yang, 2010; Morrison, 2011 ). From
team members' perspective, the open-minded fashion of inclusive leadership is particularly important
to promote such affective forces. Specifically, by directly inviting and appreciating inputs and
suggestions from team members and focusing on voice authentically ( Carmeli et al., 2010; Hollander,
2009; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006 ), inclusive leadership conveys a strongmessage that the teams'
voice is desired and valued ( Detert & Burris, 2007; Holland, 2009 ). When employees perceive that
their opinions and inputs are genuinely valued and taken seriously by inclusive leaders, they aremore
likely to bolster feelings of self-worth and obligation to voice their concerns and ideas and thus
increase their motivation and willingness to exhibit voice behavior ( Detert & Burris, 2007 ). Therefore,
based on the above discussion, we expect a positive relationship between inclusive leadership and
team voice.
Furthermore, we argue that teamvoice can trigger innovation in teams. As mentioned above,
team innovation is a complicated process that comprises at least two different stages, namely the
conceptualization of ideas that involves the generation of creative ideas and the implementation of the
ideas that describes the realization of creative ideas into practice ( Hülsheger et al., 2009; West, 2002 ).
Team voice would have bene fi cial impact on team innovation with regard to these two stages.
First, team voice may lead to the increased generation of new ideas through the promotion of
knowledge and information sharing and integration. Speci fi cally, as an important team process that
allows the distinct knowledge and insights of team members to be shared and different perspectives
and ideas to be thoroughly discussed in teams ( LePine & Van Dyne, 1998; Walumbwa et al., 2012 ),
team voice can play a pivotal role in stimulating innovation in teams. Moreover, some scholars have
argued that innovation usually begins with the response to perceived problems, insuf fi ciencies, or
suboptimal processes ( Zhou & George, 2003 ). In other words, team innovation is an unconventional
act that requires rejecting or modifying previously accepted ideas, thinking
“ outside the box ” and extending beyond routines and common assumptions ( Eisenbeiss et al., 2008;
Zhou & George, 2003 ). With regard to this, by proactively challenging the status quo, questioning the
long-held assumptions, and calling for modi fi cations in
“ the way things are ” ( Detert & Burris, 2007; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998 ), team voice may constitute an
important force for team innovation. Second, with regard to the implementation and realization of new
ideas, critical discussion, elaboration, and
 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480
experimentation is necessary ( Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Janssen, 2001 ). In this respect, by focusing
attention on important operational concerns ( Detert & Burris, 2007 ), preventing a premature
movement toward consensus ( Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001 ), and stimulating the re-evaluation of the
status quo ( Detert & Trevino, 2010 ), team voice will force team members to rethink and re fl ect on their
perspectives and consider factors they have not previously considered ( Drach-Zahavy & Somech,
2001 ). Consequently, these actions would enhance the innovative output of the team. Furthermore,
voice may encourage team members to think divergently, introduce a greater range of strategic
alternatives, and engender more careful consideration of the feasibility of such alternatives ( LePine &
Van Dyne, 1998; Morrison, 2011 ), thereby is conducive to the successful implementation of team
innovation.
In accordance with the above discussion and given the signi fi-
cance of inclusive leadership on team voice and the importance of team voice for the effective
functioning of team innovation, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. The positive relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation is mediated by team
voice.
2.3. The moderating role of performance pressure
According to the goal-setting theory, team goals will regulate teammembers' behaviors by
affecting what they focus on andwhat they appreciate ( Locke & Latham, 1990 ). Performance pressure
re-
fl ects a mindset or belief that the current performance is insuf fi-
cient for achieving a desired goal ( Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009; Gardner, 2012 ) and is likely to affect
how team members evaluate and respond to inclusive leadership, thereby will in fl uence the
effectiveness of inclusive leadership to promote team voice.
In particular, performance pressure as an uncertainty-related factor frequently induces anxiety
and brings uncertainty ( Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009 ). Inclusive leadership that endorses safety and
security by emphasizing openness, accessibility, and availability to followers is likely to be a
particularly important means of enabling team members to effectively counter and cope with these
negative effects and psychological stress resulting from high performance pressure ( Carmeli et al.,
2010; Hollander, 2009 ). Therefore, the psychological stresses associated with the need to meet high
performance goals are likely to render team members more sensitive to leaders' behaviors ( Pierro,
Cicero, Bonaiuto, van Knippenberg, & Kruglanski, 2005 ) and will make the treatment that team
members receive from their inclusive leaders more salient. In other words, to alleviate the negative
experience of performance pressure and to enhance performance, teammembers would likely rely
more on inclusive leadership and more favorably appraise inclusive leadership. Consequently,
teammembers will be more appreciative and responsive to inclusive leadership and thus will more
likely follow inclusive leadership's natural invitation for input and be more involved in voice behavior.
Hence, it appears likely that high performance pressure may function as an important context that will
amplify the positive effects of inclusive leadership on team voice. Consistent with this view, some
researchers have highlighted the importance of leadership in times of pressure and concluded that ‘‘ followersleaders in China. The investigation of the relationship between inclusive leadership and team
look up to their leaders as a source of certainty and may thus be more attentive to their guidance and
actions ’’ ( Oreg & Berson, 2011 , p. 632). Empirically, some studies have provided evidence that a
desire to reduce uncertainty may lead teammembers to be more susceptible to the in fl uence of their
leader and thus improve the effectiveness of leadership ( Pierro et al., 2005 ). In addition, according to
the goal-setting theory, meeting high performance criteria may activate a state of alertness and
peppiness ( Eisenberger & Aselage, 2009; Gardner,
471
2012; Locke & Latham, 1990 ) and enhance the team's responsibility and accountability for delivering
high-quality outcomes ( Gardner, 2012; Zhang et al., 2016 ). These incentives could further motivate
team members to take full advantage of inclusive leadership and more effectively leverage inclusive
leadership to foster teamvoice which is crucial for the achievement of the team's performance
standards ( Gardner, 2012 ).
In contrast, if performance pressure is low, inclusive leadership is less likely to lead with the
development of team voice. Because low performance pressure is characterized by certainty,
predictable, and routine situations, and is associated with low levels of anxiety ( Gardner, 2012 ), team
members may not have to rely on their leader's support to achieve their performance goals. In other
words, because teammembers are less likely to perceive situations as threatening or demanding
when performance pressure is low, they might be less sensitive to the positive effect of inclusive
leadership. In such situations, although inclusive leadership encourages team members to voice,
team members will be less responsive to this expectation. Inclusive leadership is less likely to be
favorably evaluated by team members under low performance pressure than under high pressure.
Consequently, the bene fi cial treatment of inclusive leadership is less prominent under low
performance pressure and will have a “ discount ” effect on team voice behaviors.
In summary, these arguments suggest that performance pressure operates as a boundary
condition for the hypothesized relationship between inclusive leadership and teamvoice. Accordingly,
we formulate the following hypothesis:
H3. Performance pressure moderates the relationship between inclusive leadership and team voice,
such that the positive relationship is stronger under high pressure conditions than under low pressure
conditions.
In combination, based on the relationships predicted in Hypotheses 2 and 3, we propose that the
mediated relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation through team voice will be
contingent on performance pressure ( Edwards & Lambert, 2007 ). Therefore, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
H4. The indirect relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation through team voice is
moderated by performance pressure, such that the relationship is stronger under high pressure
conditions than under low pressure conditions.
3. Overview of methods
We test our hypotheses on two fi eld studies with multi-source data from team members and their
innovation is especially important in a developing country context, such as China, because the
dynamic and competitive business conditions and macroeconomic volatility usually pose a challenge
to leaders seeking to boost team innovations that are crucial for organizations' survival and long-term
development ( Perry-Smith, 2006 ). At the same time, although inclusive leadership was developed as
an indigenous western leadership style, it is compatible with traditional Chinese values. The traditional
Chinese culture emphasizes virtues of inclusiveness and tolerance for individual differences, which
provides the main cultural foundation underlying inclusive leadership in China ( Fang &Wang, 2016;
Peng, Zhu, & Chen, 2017; Zhang & Gu, 2017; Zhu & Qian, 2014 ). In this regard, inclusive leadership
deserves more systematic research in China and may generate signi fi cant fi ndings. Therefore, China
provides an ideal and fertile ground to address the relationship between
inclusive leadership and team innovation in
472 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480
organizations.
To provide a robust and meaningful test of the proposed hypotheses and increase the theoretical
validity and precision of our model, the two fi eld studies adopted different, yet complementary, design
and sampling strategies. Speci fi cally, Study 1 used work teams in various functional areas in two
different industries, while Study 2 investigated the proposed relationships by using research and
development teams (R&D teams) in the same high-technology industry.
3.1. Study 1
3.1.1. Sample and procedures
Data were collected from two companies operating in two industries (medical devices and
banking) located in a southern province in China in January 2017. We fi rst contacted the CEOs of
these two companies and asked for their permission. We then asked the HRmanager of each
company to prepare a list of teams in the company covering a variety of functional areas including
R&D, administration, fi nance, marketing, and sales. Next, we asked the leaders of these teams to
identify coremembers in their teams. This procedure resulted in 230 members from 55 teams. To
reduce the risk of common method variance ( Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003 ), we
differentiated the sources of data. Employees' questionnaire included measures of inclusive
leadership, perception of performance pressure, and their personal data. Leader's questionnaire
included measures of team voice, team innovation, team size, team type, and leader's personal data.
The questionnaires included company and employee identi fi cation codes so that data collected from
the leaders and employees could be matched and grouped for analysis. Because of the sensitive
nature of certain questions, anonymous and strictly con fi dential data treatment was assured.
Separate questionnaires were then handdelivered to team members and their leaders during their
working hours and the authors were present to answer questions and collected the surveys
immediately after completion.
In total, we sent questionnaires to 230 employees from55 teams and to 55 leaders who
supervised these teams. Among them, 192 employees (83.5% response rate) and 47 managers
(85.5% response rate) provided responses. To ensure reliable responses for aggregation to the team
level, the average response ratewithin the teams is 70%. After eliminating the uncompleted
questionnaires, 41 teams with 163 team members remained for data analyses and hypotheses
testing. Among these 41 teams, 21 came from company 1 and 20 came from company 2, 28.6% are
R&D teams, 26.2% are sales teams, 19% are marketing teams, 16.7% are fi nance teams, and 9.5%
are administrative teams. The average team size was 3.97 team members. In the subordinate data,
47.9% were male; the average age was 35.8 years; average fi rm tenure was 13 years; average team
tenure was 4.8 years, 10.4% have high-school degree, 41.1% have college's degree, 46.6% have
bachelor's degrees, and 1.9% have master's degrees or above. In the supervisor data, 70.7% were
male, the average age was 39.9 years, average fi rm tenure was 19.2 years, average team tenurewas
5.2 years, 7.3% have high-school diplomas,
34.2% have college's degrees, and 58.5% have bachelor's degrees or above.
3.1.2. Measures
A fi ve-point Likert scale was used for all study measures, with 1 representing strongly disagree
and 5 representing strongly agree. All measures used were adapted from the existing literature and
had already been found with good levels of reliability and validity. Given that all of the measures were
originally developed in English, the back-translation method ( Brislin, 1986 ) was applied to verify the
questionnaires in Chinese. Each questionnaire was pre-tested
by 10 individuals for clarity and construct validity. Some minor re fi nements to the questionnaires were
made based on the comments received.
3.1.2.1. Inclusive leadership. Inclusive leadership was measured using the nine-item developed by Carmeli
et al. (2010) . A sample item is “ The manager is open to hearing new ideas. ”
3.1.2.2. Team voice. Team voice was measured using the six-item developed by Walumbwa et al.
(2012) . A sample item is “ Employees in my team speak up and encourage others to get involved in
issues that affect this team. ”
3.1.2.3. Team innovation. Team innovationwas measured using the nine-item developed by Janssen
(2001) . A sample item is “ My team searches out new working methods, techniques, or instruments. ”
3.1.2.4. Performance pressure. Performance pressure was measured using the three-item developed
by Gardner (2012) . A sample item is “ Client's satisfaction with our current work performance
determines the possibilities of our future cooperation. ”
3.1.2.5. Control variables. We controlled on team size and team type in this study because previous
studies have found that these variables have an impact on leader behaviors ( Cha, Kim, Lee, &
Bachrach, 2015; LePine & Van Dyne, 1998 ) and team innovation ( Hülsheger et al., 2009 ).
3.1.3. Data analysis
We fi rst applied SPSS Statistics v. 22.0 to conduct exploratory factor analysis and generate
descriptive statistics. In addition, we used LISREL 8.5 to performcon fi rmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Then, we used hierarchical regression analysis to test our hypotheses. In order to test the
moderated-mediation effect and con fi rm the
fi ndings from the regression analyses, we conducted bootstrap test with 1000 subsamples using
PROCESS macro ( Hayes, 2013 ).
3.1.4. Data aggregation
Because team inclusive leadership and performance pressure refer to the shared perception
among team members, we aggregated individuals' perceptions of these variables to form the measure
at the team level. To determine whether the aggregation was appropriate, we calculated the
within-group agreement (Rwg;
James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993 ), the intra class correlations (ICC1), and the reliability of the means
(ICC2; Bliese, 2000 ). The median Rwg value was 0.98 for inclusive leadership and 0.94 for
performance pressure. We further calculated the ICC values to determine if there was suf fi cient
between-level variance for these above measures. For inclusive leadership, the ICC1 value was 0.29
and the ICC2 value was 0.61; for performance pressure, the ICC1 value was
0.25 and the ICC2 value was 0.57. Overall, these results support the aggregation of inclusive
leadership and performance pressure to the team level, so we elected to continue with the
aggregation of these variables.
3.1.5. Results
To evaluate the reliability and validity of the scales in this study, we performed a series of
analyses before testing hypotheses. The Cronbach's coef fi cient alpha indicated good reliability for the
main constructs in this study ( Table 1 ), with all values above the 0.70 threshold required for advanced
research. The factor loadings ranged from 0.88 to 0.94 for the inclusive leadership items, from
0.76 to 0.92 for the performance pressure items, from 0.54 to 0.84 for the team voice items, and from
0.73 to 0.84 for the team innovation items. The results of the CFA revealed that the
 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480 473

hypothesized model fi t the data well ( c 2/ df ¼ 1.76, RMSEA ¼ 0.07, RMR ¼ 0.03, CFI ¼ 0.90, and IFI ¼ 0.91).
Table 2
Results of regression analysis for mediation (Study 1).
Moreover, the multicollinearity does not seem to be an issue because the variance in fl ation factor
(VIF) values are all below 2.5. Based on these analyses, we proceed to test the main hypotheses. Variables Team Voice Team Innovation

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5

Control variables
As shown in Table 1 , inclusive leadership was signi fi cantly and positively related to team voice (r ¼
Team size 0.17 0.13 0.06 0.05 0.06
0.48, p < 0.01) and team innovation (r ¼ 0.45, p < 0.01). Furthermore, team voice was positively Team type 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.02
related to team innovation (r ¼ 0.74, p < 0.01). The results of the regression analysis presented in Table Main variables

2 provided support for H1 by showing that inclusive leadership was signi fi cantly related to team Inclusive leadership 0.46** 0.44** 0.13
Team voice 0.75** 0.69**
innovation (Model 3: b ¼ 0.44, p < 0.01).
R2 0.26 0.02 0.21 0.54 0.56
F 4.299* 0.36 3.25* 14.71** 11.31**

N ¼ 41, 2-tailed test. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

To test the mediating effect of team voice ( H2 ), in accordance

with Preacher and Hayes's (2008) suggestion, we adopted two analytical approaches. First, we
H4 by estimating the conditional indirect effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation via team
performed a series of regression analyses. As reported in Table 2 , inclusive leadership had a positive
voice with 95% bootstrapped con fi dence intervals and 1000 bootstrap resamples. The 95%
relationship with team innovation (M3: b ¼ 0.44, p < 0.01) and team voice (M1: b ¼ 0.46, p < 0.01), and
biascorrected con fi dence interval (0.26 e 2.2) suggested that the conditional indirect effect of inclusive
team voice was positively related to team innovation (M4: b ¼ 0.75, p < 0.01). When we included
leadership on team innovation via team voice was signi fi cant under high performance pressure
inclusive leadership and team voice in the same regression equation, the positive effect of inclusive
(indirect effect ¼ 1.23) but not signi fi cant under low performance pressure (indirect effect ¼ 0.32; 95%
leadership on team innovation decreased and became not signi fi cant ( b ¼ 0.13, ns), thus indicating a con fi dence interval is 0.08 to
full mediation effect of team voice ( Baron & Kenny, 1986; Judd & Kenny, 1981 ). Then, based on these
regression estimates, we used bootstrapping to evaluate the statistical signi fi-

0.85). Therefore, we had evidence to support H4 .

3.1.6. Discussion of study 1

This study found preliminary support for the proposed model. Speci fi cally, the results showed
cance of the indirect effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation through team voice ( Preacher &
that there is a positive relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation and this
Hayes, 2008 ). According to the bootstrapping result, the indirect effect of inclusive leadership on team
relationship was mediated by team voice. Furthermore, performance pressure moderated the
innovation via teamvoicewas estimated as 0.46 with the 95% bias-corrected con fi dence interval as
relationship between inclusive leadership and team voice as well as the indirect relationship between
0.15 and 0.99. Because the con fi dence interval did not contain zero, the indirect effect was
inclusive leadership and team innovation through team voice, such that the positive relationships were
considered to be statistically signi fi cant, providing additional evidence to support H2 .
stronger when performance pressure was higher.

Then, we employed regression analysis to examine the moderating role of performance pressure
By collecting data from teams in a variety of functions in organizations from different industries,
on the relationship between inclusive leadership and team voice ( H3 ). As recommended by
this study increased the potential generalizability of our fi ndings to a broad range of settings and
allowed us to rule out the possibility that the fi ndings might be unique to a particular type of teams.
Aiken and West (1991) , inclusive leadership and performance pressure were centered before running
However, the innovative performance of these teams varied by the nature of their tasks, and the
the analyses. As Table 3
performance pressure of these teams is also quite different. Moreover, the results also showed very
shows, the interaction term was signi fi cant ( b ¼ 0.39, p < 0.05) and explained an additional 9% of the
high inter-construct correlations between team voice and team innovation as well as between
variance in team voice. We then employed Aiken and West's (1991) procedures to plot the pattern of
inclusive leadership and performance pressure. In addition, we did not control for other forms of
the signi fi cant interaction effects. Consistent with our expectation, as depicted in Fig. 2 , the simple
related leadership styles that have been found to positively relate to team innovation, such as
slope test further showed that at high level of performance pressure, inclusive leadership was
transformational leadership. These shortcomings may raise the
positively and signi fi cantly related to team voice; however, at low level of performance pressure, the
relationship between inclusive leadership and team voice was not signi fi cant. Thus, H3 was
supported.

Having supported the moderating effect proposed in H3 , we Table 3

proceeded to test for the moderated mediation effect predicted in Results of hierarchical regression analysis for moderation by performance pressure (Study 1).

Variables Team Voice

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations (Study 1). Control variables
Team size 0.25 0.19 0.12
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
Team type 0.07 0.02 0.02
Main variables Main variables
1.Inclusive leadership 4.27 0.39 (0.97) Inclusive leadership 0.67** 0.72**
2.Team voice 4.12 0.53 0.48** (0.85) Performance pressure 0.37* 0.61**
3.Team innovation 4.08 0.57 0.45** 0.74** (0.92) Interaction term
4.Performance pressure 4.15 0.40 0.59** 0.06 0.16 (0.81) Inclusive leadership x performance pressure R 2 0.39*
Control variables 0.06 0.35 0.43
5.Team size 4.90 2.13 0.13 0.23 0.11 0.15 F 1.15 4.76** 5.37**
6.Team type 1.73 1.29 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.27 D R2 0.06 0.29** 0.09*

N ¼ 41, Reliabilities are in parentheses, 2-tailed test. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. N ¼ 41, 2-tailed test. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
474 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480
4.5
4
Team Voice
3.5
3
2.5
2 prressurre
1.5
1
Low Inclusive leadership
Fig. 2. The moderating effect of performance pressure on the relationship between inclusive leadership and team voice (Study 1).
question for the precision of the proposed model. Therefore, to limit extraneous in fl uences because of
different industry types and functions and become more con fi dent regarding the robustness and
theoretical validity of our model, we conducted Study 2 to con fi rm the fi ndings of Study 1 by using a
sample of R&D teams from a single industry and taking transformational leadership as a control
variable.
3.2. Study 2
3.2.1. Sample and procedure
Data for Study 2 were collected from 66 R & D teams in 5 large organizations engaged in the
software development industry located in a major city in southeast China in November 2018. This
industry was selected because new product development and creative R&D efforts are critical for
company survival because of the industry's rapid technological advances and highly competitive
markets ( Balkin, Markman, & Gomez-Mejia, 2000 ). Moreover, as a result of novel and complex
situations typically faced by R&D teams as well as the job responsibilities for fi nding innovative
solutions in their daily work, R&D teams in the software development industry provide an ideal setting
for exploring our hypotheses.
We collected the data through the following procedures. We
fi rst met the HR managers of these fi rms and received their permission to conduct the study. The HR
managers then helped us to contact the leaders of each R&D team. After securing the team leaders'
agreement to participate, the researchers met with each team leader, explained the study objectives
and procedures, and asked them to provide their teams' member lists. At time 1, team members
provided information on their demographics, perceived inclusive leadership of team leaders, and
performance pressure. At time 2 (2 weeks after time 1), team leaders rated team voice behavior and
team innovation and provided information about their own demographics and team size. The
questionnaires were coded before distribution with the help of HR staff of each fi rm to make sure that
leaders' and members' responses that belong to the same team could be matched. The
questionnaires were distributed to participants during working hours by a research assistant without
the presence of any management member. A cover letter
Low
Performance
prressurre
High
Performance
High Inclusive leadership
that explained the survey objective and assured anonymity and con fi dentiality was attached to each
questionnaire.
In total, we sent questionnaires to 521 employees from99 teams in 5 companies and to 99
managers who supervised these teams. Among them, 411 employees (78.9% response rate) and 68
managers (68.7% response rate) provided responses. To ensure reliable responses for aggregation
to the team level, the minimum number of responding teammembers necessary for the inclusionwas
three members per team, with the average response rate within the teams being 60%. These
screening procedures resulted in 66 teams with 406 teammembers that were used for fi nal statistical
analyses (Company A: 13 teams; Company B: 10 teams; Company C: 15 teams; Company D: 12
teams; and Company E: 16 teams).
The average team size for these 66 teams was 6.15, with a range from 3 to 15 members. Among
team leaders, 65.2% were male; the average age was 37.0 years; average fi rm tenure was 6.5 years;
average team tenure was 4.4 years, 13.6% have college's degree,
39.4% have bachelor's degrees, 47.0% have master's degrees or above. Among team members,
51.3% were male; the average age was 35.0 years; 7.4% have college degrees, 45.8% have
bachelor's degrees, and 46.8% have master's degrees or above.
3.2.2. Measures
To obtain a more general and reliable measure of the variables studied in this model, the scales
used in Study 2 to measure inclusive leadership, team voice, team innovation, and performance
pressure are the ones used in Study 1.
3.2.2.1. Control variable. As in Study 1, team size was controlled. Moreover, in order to capture the
unique effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation, we also include transformational leadership
as a control variable into our analysis to examine whether inclusive leadership explains the additional
unique variance. Transformational leadership was measured using Kirkman et al. ‘ s (2009) 14-item
scale and rated by team members and then aggregated to the team level. Sample items include: “ My
leader articulates a vision. ” In addition, because the gender of leaders has been found to affect the in fl uence
of leadership ( Owens & Hekman, 2012 ), we also take leader's gender as a control variable.
 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480 475

3.2.3. Data aggregation
Similar to the procedures described in Study 1, we evaluated the appropriateness of data
aggregation for inclusive leadership, performance pressure, and transformational leadership. In this
study, the mean Rwg was 0.97 for inclusive leadership, 0.84 for performance pressure, and 0.98 for
transformational leadership, all of which were above the conventionally acceptable Rwg value of 0.70,
thus indicating strong agreement among members within teams ( James et al., 1993 ). In addition, for
inclusive leadership, the ICC1 value was 0.29 and the ICC2 value was 0.71; for performance
pressure, the ICC1 value was 0.30 and the ICC2 value was 0.73; for transformational leadership, the
ICC1 value was 0.35 and the ICC2 value was 0.77. Combined, these results indicated that it was
statistically appropriate to conceptualize and analyze inclusive leadership, performance pressure, and
transformational leadership at the team level.
the bootstrapping analysis. The results indicated that the indirect effect ¼ 0.22; the 95% con fi dence
interval for the mediation effect did not include zero [0.01, 0.49]. Therefore, H2 was supported.
To test the moderating effects of performance pressure ( H3 ), we
mean-centered both inclusive leadership and performance pressure to avoid potential multicollinearity
( Aiken & West, 1991 ). As shown in Table 6 , the interaction term of inclusive leadership and
performance pressure was signi fi cant in predicting team voice ( b ¼ 0.22, p < 0.05). The additional
proportion of variance in team innovation explained by the interaction term was also signi fi cant ( D R2¼
0.04, p < 0.05). We then employed Aiken and West's (1991)
procedures to plot the pattern of the signi fi cant interaction effects. As Fig. 3 displays, inclusive
leadership had a stronger effect on team voice under high performance pressure than under low
performance pressure. Taken together, H3 was supported.

Having supported the moderating effect of performance pressure on the relationship between
inclusive leadership and team voice, we proceed to examine the moderated mediation as predicted in H4

3.2.4. Results . The bootstrapping results revealed that inclusive leadership was indirectly related to team innovation
through team voice when performance pressure is high (indirect effect ¼ 0.39; 95% CI ¼ 0.48 to 0.88).

In this study, the Cronbach's coef fi cient alpha also indicated good reliability for the main When performance pressure is low, the indirect effect was not signi fi cant (indirect effect ¼ 0.11; 95%

constructs ( Table 4 ), with all values above the 0.70 threshold required for advanced research. The CI ¼ 0.11 to 0.36). Therefore, H4 was supported.

factor loadings ranged from0.94 to 0.98 for the inclusive leadership items, from 0.95 to 0.98 for the
performance pressure items, from 0.86 to

0.91 for the team voice items, and from 0.79 to 0.92 for the team innovation items. The results of the
CFA revealed that the hypothesized model fi t the data well ( c 2/ df ¼ 2.09, RMSEA ¼ 0.09, RMR ¼ 0.03, 3.2.5. Discussion of study 2

CFI ¼ 0.94, IFI ¼ 0.94). The VIF values are all below 1.5; hence, multicollinearity is not a concern for The results of Study 2 con fi rmed the previous fi ndings from Study 1. Speci fi cally, in Study 2, we

the regression analysis. Based on these analyses, we proceed to test the main hypotheses. found that inclusive leadership increases teamvoice, which subsequently leads to team innovation. In
addition, Study 2 supported the moderation and the moderated mediation hypotheses by showing that
the direct effect of inclusive leadership on team voice and its indirect effect on team innovation

Themean, standard deviation, and correlations among the study variables are shown in Table 4 . through teamvoice were stronger when performance pressure was high rather than low. These effects

As expected, inclusive leadership was signi fi cantly and positively related to team voice (r ¼ 0.36, p < remain signi fi cant and stable even after controlling for transformational leadership. Therefore, these fi ndings

0.01) and team innovation (r ¼ 0.35, p < 0.01). Furthermore, team voice was positively related to team imply that inclusive leadership has unique values in

innovation (r ¼ 0.52, p < 0.01). Thus, all the correlations were in the expected direction and provided
the necessary conditions to further test the hypotheses.

Table 5
To test H1 , which predicted that inclusive leadership was posi-
Results of regression analysis for mediation (Study 2).
tively related to team innovation, we used regression analysis. As shown in Table 5 , inclusive
Variables Team Voice Team Innovation
leadership was signi fi cantly related to team innovation (Model 3: b ¼ 0.29, p < 0.05); thus, H1 was
supported. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5

Control variables
For H2 , as reported in Table 5 , inclusive leadership was posi- Team size 0.21 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.01

tively associated with team innovation (M3: b ¼ 0.29, p < 0.05) and team voice (M1: b ¼ 0.27, p < Leader gender 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.12
Transformational leadership 0.23 0.24 0.16 0.09 0.06
0.05), and team voice was positively associated with team innovation (M4: b ¼ 0.52, p < 0.01). When
Main variables
inclusive leadership and team voice were included in the same regression equation, the positive
Inclusive leadership 0.27* 0.29* 0.17
impact of inclusive leadership on team innovation decreased and became not signi fi cant ( b ¼ 0.17, Team voice 0.52** 0.46**
ns), suggesting a full mediation of team voice. We then performed R2 0.30 0.09 0.17 0.30 0.32
F 6.51** 2.03 3.08* 6.42** 5.63**

N ¼ 66, 2-tailed test. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

Table 4
Means, standard deviations, and correlations (Study 2).

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Main variables
1.Inclusive leadership 4.02 0.53 (0.99)
2.Team voice 3.30 0.83 0.36** (0.95)
3.Team innovation 3.88 0.73 0.35** 0.52** (0.96)
4.Performance pressure 3.86 0.63 0.00 0.24 0.07 (0.97)
Control variables
5.Team size 6.15 2.39 0.12 0.31* 0.18 0.07
6.Leader gender 0.65 0.48 0.03 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.06
7.Transformational leadership 3.94 0.54 0.29* 0.35** 0.28* 0.15 0.26* 0.05

N ¼ 66, Reliabilities are in parentheses, 2-tailed test. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
476 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480

Table 6 value of understanding the relationship between leadership and team innovation ( Eisenbeiss et al.,
Results of hierarchical regression analysis for moderation by performance pressure (Study 2).
2008; Han et al., 2016; Zacher & Rosing, 2015; Zhang, Tsui, & Wang, 2011 ), this line of research is
limited by its exclusive reliance on transformational leadership ( Jiang & Chen, 2018; Keller, 2006 ). By
Variables Team Voice focusing instead on inclusive leadership, this study represents a signi fi cant departure from extant

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 literature and provides a deeper understanding of the speci fi c leadership style that is effective to
stimulate team innovation. Second, by revealing the mediating role of team voice, this study clearly
Control variables
Team size 0.22 0.18 0.19 highlighted the importance of teamprocesses for explaining how inclusive leadership affects team
Leader gender 0.24* 0.25* 0.22* innovation. Although the existing literature has recognized a number of team processes that can
Transformational leadership 0.30* 0.28* 0.25* provide valuable frameworks for understanding team innovation (e.g., Hülsheger et al., 2009; Tang &
Main variables
Naumann, 2016 ), the speci fi c processes that can be used by leaders to foster team innovation are
Inclusive leadership 0.26* 0.30**
largely ignored ( Jiang & Chen, 2018; Kearney & Gebert, 2009 ). Therefore, by incorporating and
Performance pressure 0.26* 0.22*
Interaction term theorizing team voice as an underlying team-level mechanism that links inclusive leadership and team
Inclusive leadership x performance pressure R 2 0.22* innovation, this study provides support for Hülsheger and colleagues' argument that “ team process
0.23 0.37 0.41
variables display substantial and generalizable relationships with innovation ” ( 2009: 1137) and
F 6.20** 6.89** 6.81**
complements Kearney and Gebert's work on the contributions of integrative processes to team
D R2 0.23** 0.13** 0.04*
performance.
N ¼ 66, 2-tailed test. *p < 0.05,**p < 0.01.

promoting team innovation.

4. Discussion and conclusions

The purpose of the present study is to provide a more comprehensive and thorough
understanding of how and when inclusive leadership facilitates team innovation. Overall, the results of
two fi eld studies in China clearly supported our model and revealed that inclusive leadership elicited
and contributed to team innovation indirectly through teamvoice and that such effects were
statistically signi fi cant even after controlling for transformational leadership. Furthermore, the results
provide consistent support for the argument that performance pressure shapes the effectiveness of
inclusive leadership and that the in fl uence of inclusive leadership on team voice and subsequently
team innovation is more pronounced in the presence of high performance pressure. The theoretical
and practical implications of these fi ndings are discussed below.
The present study also makes several important theoretical contributions to the inclusive
leadership literature. First, this study extends the current understanding of the outcomes of inclusive
leadership to team-level outcomes by demonstrating the positive effects of inclusive leadership on
team voice and team innovation. This is an especially needed contribution to the inclusive leadership
literature because although interest in the important role that inclusive leadership plays in
organizations has expanded in recent years due to the increasingly diverse workforce resulting from
the globalization of economic activities, nearly all prior studies on inclusive leadership have been
focused on individual level outcomes (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2010 ); prior to this research, the impact of
inclusive leadership on team-level outcomes had not been empirically examined. With direct evidence
that inclusive leadership is indeed effective inmotivating teamvoice and team innovation, this study
provides additional support for the value of inclusive leadership and expands our understanding of the
essential bene fi ts of inclusive leadership in organizational settings. Second, in contrast to prior studies
that have been con fi ned to individual-level mechanisms, such as psychological safety to explain the in fl
uence of inclusive leadership ( Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006 ), this study is the fi rst to illustrate
team-level mechanisms by drawing on an

4.1. Theoretical implication

This study contributes to the team innovation literature in two ways. First, this study advances
our knowledge about the antecedents of team innovation by demonstrating the uniqueness of
inclusive leadership in promoting team innovation. Although both the innovation and leadership
literature have clearly identi fi ed the

4.5

3.5
Team Voice

Low Performance
3 pressure
High Performance
2.5
pressure

1.5

1
Low Inclusive Leadership High Inclusive Leadership

Fig. 3. The moderating effect of performance pressure on the relationship between inclusive leadership and team voice (Study 2).
 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480
input-process-output framework. In arguing that team voice is a key mechanism responsible for
explicating the effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation and by providing empirical evidence
for this argument, this study broadens and deepens our understanding of how inclusive leadership
exerts its in fl uences in organizations. Third, although the contingency approach is well established in
leadership studies ( Fiedler, 1971; Pierro et al., 2005 ), a majority of inclusive leadership research has
predominantly focused on examining its main effects ( Carmeli et al., 2010; Nembhard & Edmondson,
2006 ); little attention has been given to the clari fi cation of the potential moderators of the inclusive
leadership e outcome relationship, and consequently, our knowledge of the conditions under which the
effect of inclusive leadership will be either ampli fi ed or attenuated remains limited. In this study, we fi ll
this gap by providing empirical evidence that performance pressure moderates the impact of inclusive
leadership on team voice and subsequent team innovation. As a result, this study offers a more
holistic view on when inclusive leadership is more likely to in fl uence team outcomes.
In addition, this study advances the research of voice in the following ways. First, the results of
this study contribute to the voice literature by providing additional evidence of the robustness of this
team-level construct that has meaningful outcomes. Although voice behavior has been recognized as
a critical factor affecting organizational functioning and success ( Morrison, 2011 ) and has received
increased attention over the last few decades ( Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2011, 2014 ), most of
the previous research has primarily conceptualized and addressed it at the individual level. Recent
evidence, however, suggests that voice behavior can be conceptualized and measured at the team
level (e.g., Frazier & Bowler, 2015 ) and indeed some studies have suggested that teamvoice has
unique value in the context of teams and may be more effective than individual voice ( Frazier &
Bowler, 2015; Walumbwa et al., 2012 ). Unfortunately, until now, only a few studies examined team
voice (i.e., Frazier & Bowler, 2015; Walumbwa et al., 2012 ). Therefore, by focusing on voice behavior
at the team level, this study broadens the scope of the voice construct and contributes to the
emerging research on team voice. Second, this study made important strides in identifying team
innovation as an outcome of team voice. Although a key assumption in the voice literature is that
voice behavior has positive effects on teams and organizations, this assumption has received little
empirical attention ( Morrison, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2012 ). Over the past several decades, the
majority of research on voice focused mainly on the antecedents of voice but left a large knowledge
gap regarding the consequences of voice. This study fi lls this empirical lacuna by demonstrating for
the fi rst time that team voice represents a critical mechanism that ensures the effectiveness of
inclusive leadership on team innovation. Moreover, by demonstrating inclusive leadership as an
antecedent of team voice, this study further bolsters the importance of the social context of voice at
work (e.g., Detert & Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2011 ) and provides empirical support for the theoretical
argument that leaders affect voice in organizations ( Morrison & Milliken, 2000 ).
Moreover, this study also provides a broader picture of the function of performance pressure in
organizations. Given the increasing prevalence of performance pressure in today's
achievement-oriented society, extensive theoretical work has corroborated the notion that
performance pressure does matter in individual and team performance ( Gardner, 2012 ). Performance
pressure has, thus, become an important context in organizations that merits research attention.
However, although there are many studies focused on the detrimental effect of performance pressure
on employee well-being and productivity (e.g., Cooper, Dewe, & O'Driscoll, 2001; Gilboa, Shirom,
Fried, & Cooper, 2008 ), there is a
477
paucity of studies devoted to examining the positive effect of performance pressure in organizations.
Our study shows the interesting result that performance pressure, a discomforting subjective state, is
an important context that strengthens the positive effect of inclusive leadership on team voice. This
empirical fi nding, thus, supplements contemporary views of the effect of performance pressure in
organizations.
Finally, this study is among the fi rst to explore the in fl uence of inclusive leadership on team
innovation in China, a nonwestern developing country, thus responding to calls to look beyond the
national boundaries of western societies and investigate in other cultures the predictive ef fi cacies of
various leadership styles that have been deeply rooted in western countries ( Eisenbeiss, 2012 ).
Although inclusive leadership is espoused as a universal construct, it was largely developed within
western context, and the majority of studies in this domain of research have been conducted in
developed countries in North America and Europe. As a result, we know relatively little on the nature
and in fl uence of such leadership in nonwestern countries; how this leadership style in fl uences
organizational behavior in nonwestern contexts is, therefore, an interesting question that remains to
be addressed. By showing that the relationship between inclusive leadership and team voice as well
as team innovation was fairly strong for Chinese employees in both samples, this study fi lls this gap
and enhances the robustness and validity of the concept of inclusive leadership in a Chinese context,
thereby underscoring the applicability and generalizability of inclusive leadership in nonwestern
environments.
4.2. Practical implication
In addition to the theoretical contributions, the fi ndings of this study provide some important
insights for practice.
First, the results of this study clearly suggest that inclusive leadership is effective in promoting
team voice and, therefore, facilitates team innovation. This fi nding is encouraging and has important
practical implications for managers seeking to design more effective management interventions to
foster team voice and team innovation in China. Given the potential costs and risks of voice behavior,
employees are more likely to remain silent and are usually reluctant to voice their opinions and ideas ( Morrison,
2014; Morrison & Milliken, 2000 ). This phenomenon might be more salient in the Chinese context
because China is a relation-oriented society ( Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997 ), and the relationalism resulted
from its tradition culture tends to emphasize harmonious social relationships with others and
discourage discord and disagreement ( Leung, Koch, & Lu, 2002 ), which will make voice behavior
particularly risky. Moreover, some other traditional cultural values in the Chinese society, such as high
power distance (e.g., Hofstede, 2001 ), strong uncertainty avoidance ( Hofstede & Bond, 1988 ), and
facesaving were also detrimental to voice behavior ( Friedman, Chi, & Liu, 2006 ). This is re fl ected in
the Chinese proverbs: “ Speech is silver, and silence is gold ” ( Zhang, Huai, & Xie, 2015 ). Therefore,
encouraging Chinese employees to voice is a big challenge for organizations operating in China. Our fi
ndings about the value of inclusive leadership in boosting team voice among Chinese teams, which fi nally
promote team innovation, is thus especially valuable for practice. In particular, given the increasing
presence of foreign
fi rms in China and the growing in fl uence of China's political and economic signi fi cance in today's
world, this study provides practical insights for multinational corporations operating in China or
managing Chinese employees. Speci fi cally, organizations should emphasize and encourage inclusive
leadership style among team leaders through insightful selection and promotion processes or
leadership development programs in order to facilitate high voice and innovations in Chinese teams.
478 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480
Second, the moderating role of performance pressure in the effects of inclusive leadership found
in this study suggests that managers should not assume that inclusive leadership would have equal
impact in all work conditions and that it provides a meaningful way which enable practitioners to
overcome performance pressure's detrimental consequences and harness its bene fi cial effects in
organizations. Performance pressure is becoming one of the most common problems and a nearly
ubiquitous condition for realworld work groups ( Gardner, 2012 ). High performance pressure usually
suggests an increase in work intensi fi cation and stress; if this pressure is not managed and handled
appropriately and effectively, detrimental and counterproductive outcomes and consequences may
ensue, such as job dissatisfaction, absenteeism, poor work performance, and negative health effects ( Gilboateam outcomes. In order to portray a more complete picture of how inclusive leadership in fl uences
et al., 2008; Hayes & Weathington, 2007 ). It is often dif fi cult, however, for organizations to reduce the
level of performance pressure in todays' competitive business environment. Consequently, effectively
managing work-related pressure in the workplace is particularly important for practitioners. By
revealing that teams under high performance pressure are more receptive to their inclusive leadership
and are, thus, more likely to voice their opinions, which ultimately leads to high team innovation, this
study reminds leaders that the pressure to performmay not always be necessarily bad and
underscores the potential positive effects of performance pressure in organizations. More speci fi cally,
this study suggests that a combination of inclusive leadership and performance pressure is a key to
promoting team voice and team innovation. It is, therefore, advisable that organizations should
choose inclusive leaders tomanage teams with high performance pressure to reduce the negative
consequences and stimulate the positive potential of performance pressure on organizational
outcomes.
4.3. Limitations and future research directions
Despite the theoretical and practical implications, this study is subjected to a number of
limitations that need to be addressed in future studies.
First, the sample size was relatively small with only 41 teams in Study 1 and 66 teams in Study 2.
A small sample size increases sampling error and reduces the power to detect statistically signi fi cant
effects. Moreover, the results of Study 1 showed very high interconstruct correlations between
variables, and we did not control for transformational leadership and leader gender because of the
relatively small sample size. These shortcomings may raise a question about the precision of the
proposedmodel ( Babyak, 2004 ). Therefore, future research that replicates and extends the current
fi ndings using larger and more representative samples would be clearly desirable. We also encourage
future research to test the researchmodel of this study by using different methodologies, such as
experiment and qualitative research, to delve into the interaction process in teams.
Second, the survey data based on self-reports may be subject to social desirability bias and raise
the potential for common method variance. A positive sign is that we collect data from different
sources, which is recommended by scholars to minimize the effects of response bias ( Podsakoff et
al., 2003 ). Moreover, to compare innovation performance across teams engaging in different tasks,
we adopted subjective supervisory ratings of innovative performance. Although such ratings facilitate
cross-team comparison, they are susceptible to human assessment bias. This perceptual measure of
team innovation may not accurately capture the accurate state of team innovation given that
managers' assessments may be biased. Therefore, a longitudinal study that includes objective
measures and collect data from different sources and different time waves would be desirable in the
future. In addition,
the concept of inclusive leadership was developed in western cultures and, therefore, may not be
totally appropriate for addressing existing forms of leadership in the Chinese culture. It is, thus,
necessary to systematically explore the unique nature of inclusive leadership in the Chinese context.
Third, given the obvious multidimensionality of team process ( Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007;
Lyubovnikova et al., 2017 ), the selection of a speci fi c team process variable (team voice) does not
fully capture the potential complexity of the relationship between leadership, team processes, and
team innovation, other team processes such as knowledge sharing could be worth exploring.
Furthermore, another interesting avenue for future study is to investigate how different team
processes complement or contradict one another in transferring the effectiveness of inclusive
leadership.
Fourth, although we proposed and con fi rmed the moderating role of performance pressure in the
relationship between inclusive leadership and team voice, it is possible that other contextual variables
might also affect the in fl uence of inclusive leadership on team voice. For instance, other working
contexts, such as organizational climate for voice, and other workplace pressures, such as
interpersonal pressure, may also regulate the link between inclusive leadership and team voice.
Finally, we focused on teams in China, whichmay raise concerns about the generalizability of the
fi ndings. Because China has a high power distance ( Hofstede, 2001 ), it is possible that Chinese
employees are more likely than their counterparts in other cultures to be affected by inclusive
leadership. Therefore, bearing in mind the cultural differences between China and western countries,
a promising research avenue would be to compare the effects of inclusive leadership on team
innovation in different cultural contexts. Moreover, if possible, it would be interesting to examine how
national culture interacts with inclusive leadership to in fl uence team voice and team innovation by
incorporating the national culture as a moderator. Such studies would enable better understanding of
the in fl uence of national culture in the effectiveness of inclusive leadership.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no.
71672175).
Appendix
Inclusive leadership ( Carmeli et al., 2010 )
1. The manager is open to hearing new ideas.
2. The manager is attentive to new opportunities to improve work processes.
3. The manager is open to discuss the desired goals and newways to achieve them.
4. The manager is available for consultation on problems.
5. The manager is an ongoing ‘ presence ’ in this team d someone
who is readily available.
6. The manager is available for professional questions I would like to consult with him/her.
7. The manager is ready to listen to my requests.
8. The manager encourages me to access him/her on emerging issues.
9. The manager is accessible for discussing emerging problems.
Team voice ( Walumbwa et al., 2012 )
 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480
1. Employees in my team develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect the
team.
2. Employees in my team speaks up and encourages others in this team to get involved in issues that
affect the team.
3. Employees in my team communicates his/her opinions about work issues to others in the team
even if his/her opinion is different and others in the team disagree with him/her.
4. Employees in my team keeps well informed about issues where his/her opinion might be useful to
the team.
5. Employees in my team gets involved in issues that affect the quality of work life here in the team.
6. Employees inmy team speaks up in the teamwith ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.
Team innovation ( Janssen, 2001 )
1. My team creates new ideas for improvements.
2. My team searches out new working methods, techniques, or instruments.
3. My team generates original solutions to problems.
4. My team mobilizes support for innovative ideas.
5. My team acquires approval for innovative ideas.
6. My teammakes important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas.
7. My team transforms innovative ideas into useful applications.
8. My team introduces innovative ideas into the work environment in a systemic way.
9. My team evaluates the utility of innovate ideas.
Performance pressure ( Gardner, 2012 )
1. Client's satisfaction with our current work performance determines the possibilities of our future
cooperation.
2. The progress of our current work is closely monitored by the top management of the company.
3. Success on the current work will signi fi cantly affect our pros-
pects for advancement within the company.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting in-
teractions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In
B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior ( pp. 123 e 167). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press .
Babyak, M. A. (2004). What you see may not be what you get: A brief, nontechnical
introduction to over fi tting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine,
66, 411 e 421 .
Balkin, D. B., Markman, G. D., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2000). Is CEO pay in high-
technology fi rms related to innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 43,
1118 e 1129 .
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 1173 e 1182 .
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations ( pp. 349 e 381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass .
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In
W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research ( pp. 137 e 164). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications .
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee
involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research
Journal, 22, 250 e 260 .
Cha, J., Kim, Y., Lee, J. Y., & Bachrach, D. G. (2015). Transformational leadership and
inter-team collaboration: Exploring the mediating role of teamwork quality and moderating role of team size. Group
& Organization Management, 40, 715 e 743 .
Chen, L., Zheng, W., Yang, B., & Bai, S. (2016). Transformational leadership, social
capital and organizational innovation. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 37, 843 e 859 .
479
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and
critique of theory, research, and applications. London: Sage .
Cropanzano, R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2010). Moral leadership: A short primer on
competing perspectives. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality ( pp. 21 e 52).
New York: Routledge .
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in
organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management, 17, 215 e 236
.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the
door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869 e 884 .
Detert, J. R., & Trevino, L. (2010). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and
skip-level leaders in fl uence employee voice. Organization Science, 21, 249 e 270 .
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team's innovation: The role
of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics, 5, 111 e 123 .
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders
promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1419 e 1452 .
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and
mediation: A general analytic framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1 e 22 .
Eisenbeiss, S. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary integra-
tive approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 791 e 808 .
Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational
leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438 e 1446
.
Eisenberger, R., & Aselage, J. (2009). Incremental effects of reward on experienced
performance pressure: Positive outcomes for intrinsic interest and creativity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 95 e 117 .
Fang, Y. C., & Wang, M. J. (2016). Effect of inclusive leadership on employees' psy-
chological capital. Science Research Management, 37, 135 e 141 .
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of
justice and organizational citizenship behaviour in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421 e 444
.
Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leader-
ship effectiveness: A review of empirical fi ndings. Psychological Bulletin, 76,
128 e 148 .
Frazier, M. L., & Bowler, W. M. (2015). Voice climate, supervisor undermining, and
work outcomes: A group-level examination. Journal of Management, 41,
841 e 863 .
Friedman, R., Chi, S. C., & Liu, L. A. (2006). An expectancy model of Chinese-
American differences in con fl ict-avoiding. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 76 e 91 .
Gardner, H. K. (2012). Performance pressure as a double edged sword: Enhancing
team motivation but undermining use of team knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57, 1 e 46 .
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta-analysis of work demand
stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects.
Personnel Psychology, 61, 227 e 272 .
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and
organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62, 461 e 473 .
Han, Y., Luo, J., & Zhong, J. (2016). The research on the effects of ambidextrous
leadership on team innovation performance: From the perspective of routine practice. Journal of Management
Science, 29, 70 e 85 .
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press .
Hayes, C. T., & Weathington, B. L. (2007). Optimism, stress, life satisfaction, and job
burnout in restaurant managers. Journal of Psychology, 141, 565 e 579 .
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life-cycle theory of leadership. Training &
Development Journal, 23, 26 e 34 .
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, in-
stitutions and organizations across cultures. Londres: Sage .
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). Confucius and economic growth: New trends in
cultural consequences. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 4 e 21 .
Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship.
New York: Routledge .
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team out-
comes: Ameta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33,
987 e 1015 .
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of
innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 1128 e 1145 .
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306 e 309 .
Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear re-
lationships between job demands and job performance and job satisfaction.
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1039 e 1050 .
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of unconven-
tional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 475 e 498 .
Jiang, Y., & Chen, C. C. (2018). Integrating knowledge activities for team innovation:
Effects of transformational leadership. Journal of Management, 44, 1819 e 1847 .
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in
treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 6, 602 e 619 .
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246 e 255 .
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes:
480 Q. Ye et al. / European Management Journal 37 (2019) 468 e 480
The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
77 e 89 .
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes
for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 202 e 210 .
Kirkman, B. L., Chen, G., Farh, J. L., Chen, Z. X., & Lowe, K. B. (2009). Individual power
reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744 e 764 .
Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). FromGuilford to creative synergy: Opening
the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285 e 294 .
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior inwork groups. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83, 853 e 868 .
Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. (2002). A dualistic model of harmony and its impli-
cations for con fl ict management in Asia. Asia Paci fi c Journal of Management, 19,
201 e 220 .
Li, V., Mitchell, R., & Boyle, B. (2016). The divergent effects of transformational leadership on individual and team
innovation. Group & Organization Management, 41, 66 e 97 .
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior,
employee identi fi cations, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 189 e 202 .
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall .
Lyubovnikova, J., Legood, A., Turner, N., & Mamakouka, A. (2017). How authentic
leadership in fl uences team performance: The mediating role of team re fl exivity. Journal of Business Ethics, 141, 59
e 70 .
Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimu-
lates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6,
64 e 74 .
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for
future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373 e 412 .
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173 e 197 .
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change
and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25,
706 e 725 .
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative
people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13,
705 e 750 .
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, 941 e 966 .
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees' reactions to change: The
role of leaders' personal attributes and transformational leadership style.
Personnel Psychology, 64, 627 e 659 .
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Modeling how to grow: An inductive exam-
ination of humble leader behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 787 e 818
. Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement
Peng, W., Zhu, Q. W., & Chen, K. Q. (2017). The relationship between inclusive
leadership and employee work engagement: The effect of loyalty to supervisor and power distance. Chinese
Journal of Management, 14, 686 e 694 .
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in
facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85 e 101 .
Pierro, A., Cicero, L., Bonaiuto, M., van Knippenberg, D., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005).
Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of need for cognitive closure. The
Leadership Quarterly, 16, 503 e 516 .
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity
and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235 e 257 .
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879 e 903 .
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879 e 891 .
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the
leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 956 e 974 .
Tang, C., & Naumann, S. E. (2016). Team diversity, mood, and team creativity: The
role of team knowledge sharing in Chinese R & D teams. Journal of Management and Organization, 22, 420 e 434 .
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of
leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654 e 676 .
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit
of construct and de fi nitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In
L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays
and critical reviews ( pp. 215 e 285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press .
Walumbwa, F. O., Morrison, E. W., & Christensen, A. L. (2012). Ethical leadership and
group in-role performance: The mediating roles of group conscientiousness and group voice. The Leadership
Quarterly, 23, 953 e 964 .
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West, &
J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies ( pp. 309 e 333).
Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley .
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of
creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: International Review, 51, 355 e 387 .
Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. The
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36, 54 e 68 .
Zhang, Z., & Gu, Y. H. (2017). The in fl uence research of inclusive leadership on
subordinates' work well-being: The role of interactional justice and traditionality. Soft Science, 31, 84 e 88 .
Zhang, Y., Huai, M., & Xie, Y. (2015). Paternalistic leadership and employee voice in
China: A dual process model. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 25 e 36 .
Zhang, W., Jex, S. M., Peng, Y., & Wang, D. (2016). Exploring the effects of job au-
tonomy on engagement and creativity: The moderating role of performance pressure and learning goal
orientation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32,
235 e 251 .
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, D. X. (2011). Leadership behaviors and group
creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 851 e 862 .
orientation: Interactive effects on creative behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261 e 276 .
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader
emotional intelligence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 545 e 568 .
Zhu, Y., & Qian, S. T. (2014). Analysis of the frontier of inclusive leadership research
and future prospects. Foreign Economics & Management, 36, 55 e 64 .