Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hrmr

Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through

belongingness and being valued for uniqueness☆
Amy E. Randela,⁎, Benjamin M. Galvinb, Lynn M. Shorec, Karen Holcombe Ehrharta,
Beth G. Chunga, Michelle A. Deana, Uma Kedharnathd
a
Management Department, Fowler College of Business Administration, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182,
United States
b
Department of Organizational Leadership and Strategy, Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, Campus Drive, Provo, UT
84602, United States
c
Management Department, College of Business, Colorado State University, 212 Rockwell Hall, Fort Collins, CO 80523, United States
d
Management Department, College of Business, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, 809 W. Starin Road, Whitewater, WI 53190, United States

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: We introduce a theoretically-grounded conceptualization of inclusive leadership and present a

Inclusion framework for understanding factors that contribute to and follow from inclusive leadership
Diverse work groups within work groups. We conceptualize inclusive leadership as a set of positive leader behaviors
Leadership that facilitate group members perceiving belongingness in the work group while maintaining
their uniqueness within the group as they fully contribute to group processes and outcomes. We
propose that leader pro-diversity beliefs, humility, and cognitive complexity increase the pro-
pensity of inclusive leader behaviors. We identify five categories of inclusive leadership beha-
viors that facilitate group members' perceptions of inclusion, which in turn lead to member work
group identification, psychological empowerment, and behavioral outcomes (creativity, job
performance, and reduced turnover) in the pursuit of group goals. This framework provides
theoretical grounding for the construct of inclusive leadership while advancing our under-
standing of how leaders can increase diverse work group effectiveness.

Diversity is thought of by many CEOs and business leaders to be a strategic priority that provides important contributions,
including increased levels of creativity and innovation (Groysberg & Connolly, 2013). Although many organizations have added more
diversity to their workforce, there has been increasing recognition that focusing on increasing diversity in organizations does not
ensure the potential benefits or the retention and/or promotion of individuals from these groups to influential positions in organi-
zations (Cook & Glass, 2014; Giscombe & Mattis, 2002; Hom, Roberson, & Ellis, 2008). Unfortunately, efforts to recruit, develop, and
promote individuals from underrepresented groups do not guarantee that these individuals' abilities are fully utilized or that their
voices and perspectives are fully heard and incorporated in organizational decisions in an advantageous manner. In many cases,
managers may wonder why they worked to achieve diversity when they do not ultimately see an improvement in the performance of
their teams and might be prone to feel that they have let down individuals for whom they sought to provide opportunities.

☆
This research was supported by the Institute for Inclusiveness and Diversity in Organizations at San Diego State University. The authors would like to thank
Cristina Gibson for her helpful feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.
⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Management, Fowler College of Business Administration, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-8238, United
States.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.E. Randel), [email protected] (B.M. Galvin), [email protected] (L.M. Shore),
[email protected] (K.H. Ehrhart), [email protected] (B.G. Chung), [email protected] (M.A. Dean), [email protected] (U. Kedharnath).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002
Received 22 January 2017; Received in revised form 17 July 2017; Accepted 18 July 2017
1053-4822/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Randel, A.E., Human Resource Management Review (2017),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

In order to achieve more complete involvement of diverse individuals in the workplace and to provide the opportunity for all
organizational members to reach their full potential, researchers and practitioners have increasingly looked to inclusion (employees
perceiving that they are esteemed members of a work group or organization as a result of treatment that satisfies belongingness and
uniqueness needs) as a route to accomplishing these goals (Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart, & Singh, 2011). Although it is clear
that experiencing inclusion in work groups holds promise, such experiences are dependent in part on effective leadership (Cottrill,
Lopez, & Hoffman, 2014). Interestingly, while scholars have highlighted the leadership challenges associated with diversity in work
groups (Chrobot-Mason & Ruderman, 2004; DiTomaso & Hooijberg, 1996), there is still limited research and theory focusing on
leadership approaches that can address these difficulties by promoting employee experiences of work group inclusion
(Nishii & Mayer, 2009). Leaders who promote employee inclusion not only hold the promise of offering value by retaining diverse
employees, but they interact with employees in ways that go beyond mere avoidance of bias and discrimination (cf., Simons, Leroy,
Veronek, & Masschelein, 2015).
We propose that inclusive leadership enables the effective functioning of diverse work groups in ways that are not sufficiently
addressed by other forms of leadership. Building on optimal distinctiveness theory and social identity theory, we conceptualize
inclusive leadership as a set of leader behaviors that are focused on facilitating group members feeling part of the group (belong-
ingness) and retaining their sense of individuality (uniqueness) while contributing to group processes and outcomes (Brewer, 1991;
Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, & Ehrhart,, & Singh, G., 2011; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Richer, & Wetherell, 1987). Thus, inclusive lea-
dership is beneficial for diverse teams through its focus on accepting women and minorities while simultaneously valuing all
members for their unique attributes, perspectives, and contributions, ultimately leading to higher performance. While a number of
existing leadership approaches have been established as effective, none has adequately addressed these fundamental needs of group
members to belong and to be valued for uniqueness. Since belonging and being valued for uniqueness are fundamental human needs,
inclusive leadership has the potential to be beneficial to diverse work groups while also being effective for more homogeneous work
groups (Brewer, 1991; Shore et al., 2011).
Managers of work groups, and other individuals in formal leadership positions, are critical to creating inclusion since group
members form perceptions of inclusion based on the treatment they receive at work (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Managers not
only are responsible for many decisions that impact employees (e.g., resource allocation decisions and work task assignments), but
they also hold a large degree of influence over the organizational environment in which inclusive treatment by others may occur
(Nishii, 2013). For example, while Johnson & Johnson is a top-rated organization by DiversityInc. for its company-wide diversity
practices, it is up to individual managers within Johnson & Johnson to play the key role of ensuring that all employees are fully
included and engaged in the work being done in the various groups within the organization (DiversityInc., 2017). While it has been
recognized in the literature that managers and other formal leaders can behave in ways that are more or less inclusive (e.g.,
Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006; Prime & Salib, 2014), much work remains to be done to advance theory related to our understanding
of inclusive leadership.
Below we review previous work that has explored inclusiveness related to leadership. We present our conceptualization of in-
clusive leadership and illustrate how it builds on and adds to existing forms of leadership. We then propose a theoretical framework
(see Fig. 1 below) in which individual differences (i.e., pro-diversity beliefs, humility, and cognitive complexity) contribute to
inclusive leadership behaviors that facilitate group members' perceptions of inclusion, which in turn contribute to group members'
work group identification and psychological empowerment and to behavioral outcomes.
Our framework makes several theoretical contributions to the literature. First, we provide a theoretically grounded model of
inclusive leadership and propose directions for future research in an area of leadership research that has been gaining popularity
without a clear theoretical foundation. Second, we provide theoretical distinctions between inclusive leadership and other forms of
leadership both in terms of defining inclusive leadership and grounding our framework in a theory that is distinct from prior lea-
dership theory. Finally, we contribute to theory on diversity and social identity by offering propositions that explain how diverse
work groups can be led effectively, and by highlighting ways in which social identity theory can be augmented to realize positive
outcomes within diverse work groups.
We limit our theorizing to the experiences of individuals within a work group and managers with formal leadership responsi-
bilities over the work group, as inclusion research has tended to focus on the experience of inclusion within groups (e.g., Nishii, 2013;
Nishii & Mayer, 2009). However, we acknowledge that inclusive leadership is likely relevant to other levels of the organization and to

Inclusive Leadership

Facilitates belongingness
Follower Perceptions of Inclusion
Supports individuals as
group members Member
Member Behavioral
Leader Individual Difference Ensures justice and equity Member perceptions of work Work Group
Outcomes
Factors Shares decision-making group belongingness Identification
Creativity
Pro-diversity beliefs
Values uniqueness Member perceptions of work Member Job performance
Humility group valuing uniqueness Psychological Reduced turnover
Cognitive complexity Encourages diverse Empowerment
contributions
Helps group members
fully contribute

Fig. 1. Theoretical model of inclusive leadership.

2
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

other individuals in formal and informal leadership roles. We also acknowledge that inclusive leadership within a work group may be
influenced by contextual factors outside of the group, such as top management's commitment to inclusion.

1. Inclusive leadership

Because the construct of inclusion is central to our theorizing regarding inclusive leadership, it is important to clarify what we
mean by “inclusion.” We build on the definition of inclusion proposed by Shore et al. (2011, p. 1265) as “the degree to which an
employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her
needs for belongingness and uniqueness.” This definition is theoretically anchored by optimal distinctiveness theory, which is an
extension of social identity theory (Brewer, 2012). Optimal distinctiveness theory argues that individuals have the need to be both
similar and different from others simultaneously (Brewer, 1991). Shore et al.’s conceptualization of inclusion is distinct from other
ways that inclusion has been viewed by stating explicitly that individuals' needs for belongingness (the need to develop and maintain
robust and stable interpersonal relationships; Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and uniqueness (the need to preserve a distinctive sense of
self; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980) both must be addressed in order to feel a sense of inclusion. This definition also explicitly refers to an
individual's experience within a work group. Shore et al.’s (2011) view of inclusion captures several themes present in the inclusion
literature, which has described being accepted (belongingness) as well as acknowledging individual talents and allowing individuals'
voices to be heard and appreciated (uniqueness) (e.g., Mor Barak, 2000; Pelled, Ledford, & Mohrman, 1999).

2. Conceptualizing inclusive leadership

During the last decade, researchers have explored how leaders may act in an inclusive manner (e.g., Nembhard & Edmondson,
2006; Nishii & Mayer, 2009). However, there have been few efforts to clearly establish inclusive leadership as a style of leadership.
Nembhard and Edmondson (2006), who appear to have coined the term leader inclusiveness, defined it as “words and deeds exhibited
by a leader or leaders that indicate an invitation and appreciation for others' contributions” (p. 947). They conceptualized it as
capturing “attempts by leaders to include others in discussions and decisions in which their voices and perspectives might otherwise
be absent” (p. 947), and as being similar to but also distinct from coaching behavior and participative leadership.
Later, Nishii and Mayer (2009) examined high-quality leader-member exchange at the group level and explored how this op-
erationalization of leader inclusiveness might reduce turnover in diverse groups. Their core argument was that when leaders signal
“their own acceptance of employees of various backgrounds through the establishment of high-quality relationships with them, group
leaders can promote norms about equality and inclusion that will facilitate greater power sharing and improve reciprocal exchanges
among group members” (Nishii & Mayer, 2009, p. 1413). Although they did not explicitly define what it means to be an inclusive
leader, their research implies that leader inclusiveness might be about developing high-quality relationships with individuals who
otherwise might be left out of such relationships (e.g., members of underrepresented groups).
In instances in which inclusive leadership has been explicitly discussed and/or measured as a specific approach to leadership (e.g.,
Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010; Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012; Mitchell, Boyle, Parker, Giles, Chiang, & Joyce,
2015), there has not been an attempt to comprehensively conceptualize or systematically compare inclusive leadership to other
existing leadership styles. Authors have generally built upon Nembhard and Edmondson's (2006) definition of leader inclusiveness
and conceptualized inclusive leadership as involving modeling openness and providing accessibility in interactions with followers
(e.g., Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010; Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012; Mitchell et al., 2015).
We seek to provide a more comprehensive and fine-grained understanding of inclusive leadership by building on Shore et al.’s
(2011) theoretical framework of inclusion and other approaches to understanding inclusive leadership (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2010;
Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Our conceptualization of inclusive leadership explicitly revolves around leader behaviors that re-
spond to group members' needs for belongingness and uniqueness within a work group; we argue that both needs must be addressed
for group members to truly feel a sense of inclusion (Shore et al., 2011). As we will describe later, leaders engage in different
behaviors to address belongingness versus value in uniqueness, although group members need to perceive that both needs are
addressed within their experiences in the group for the leader to be a truly inclusive leader.
While other work on inclusive leadership has acknowledged the role of facilitating perceptions of belongingness through high-
quality relationships and leader accessibility (Carmeli et al., 2010; Nishii & Mayer, 2009), our definition extends past theory and
research in that it highlights the simultaneous need to facilitate perceptions that uniqueness is valued (i.e., such that group members
perceive that they are valued for being unique as a result of leader behaviors in addition to perceiving that they belong). Nembhard
and Edmondson's (2006) characterization of inclusive leaders as inviting and appreciating others' contributions implies a degree of
value for uniqueness, but their emphasis is on leaders' efforts in overcoming status differences in cross-disciplinary teams such that
group members feel comfortable speaking up. Our definition differs from theirs in that leaders' efforts are specifically focused on
fostering group members' perceptions of both belonging and value for uniqueness as a group member. Further, we broaden the scope
of inclusive leadership beyond speaking up in cross-disciplinary teams.
We also place an emphasis on the experience of group members in relation to the work group in our conceptualization of inclusive
leadership. Inclusive leaders facilitate perceptions of inclusion not only by engaging in behaviors directed towards work group
members, but also by serving as a role model and reinforcing such behaviors among group members. A group member perceives that
a leader is inclusive not only by how the group member himself or herself is treated, but also by observations of how all group
members are treated. Specific inclusive leadership behaviors that accomplish perceptions of inclusion among work group members
are described in the next section.

3
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

3. Specifying inclusive leadership behaviors

We propose categories of inclusive leadership behaviors (three for belongingness and two for uniqueness), which we derived by
reviewing and extending theory within the literature on inclusive leadership and on inclusion more generally. For each inclusive
leadership behavior category, we consider how inclusive leaders can influence members directly as well as how inclusive leaders can
create a context in which members experience a sense of inclusion.

3.1. Facilitating belongingness

Several specific leader behaviors are likely to facilitate belongingness: 1) supporting group members, 2) ensuring that justice and
equity are part of each member's experience, and 3) providing opportunities for shared decision making on relevant issues.
Supporting group members involves leaders making members feel comfortable and communicating that they have the members' best
interests in mind (Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). To accomplish this, inclusive leaders create a com-
fortable environment and exert influence by helping members with their needs and expressing support for them and their opinions.
Inclusive leaders also can role model support of members throughout the team such that other members replicate that care and
acceptance in group interactions (cf., Nishii, 2013). When leaders put into place routines of inclusion through role modeling or by
instituting inclusive practices, such as a time at the beginning of the day for the leader and members to check in with other group
members or asking group members to verbalize what they have appreciated about being part of the group during group meetings,
inclusive leaders create a sense of community that can propagate belongingness perceptions among group members.
Ensuring justice and equity allows inclusive leaders to demonstrate fair treatment of group members and thus to indicate to
members that they are a respected part of the group (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Sabharwal, 2014; Shore et al., 2011). When inclusive leaders
ensure justice and equity, they not only indicate respect for individual group members (for example, by seeking out every group
member's preferences regarding group tasks), but they also proactively consider how decisions unintentionally could create a lack of
equity across group members. For example, a leader who suggests that top managers strategize for an important meeting over drinks
at a bar after hours could undermine perceptions of inclusion for someone whose religion does not allow him or her to drink alcohol
or an individual with a physical disability who relies on limited public transportation scheduling. Similarly, conducting a last-minute
weekend retreat to discuss a new strategic initiative, with the expectation that everyone would be available, could disadvantage
members with weekend obligations, such as single parents who would likely struggle to find childcare on short notice. Creating
systems that ensure justice and equity is one way in which inclusive leaders exert their influence at the group level. For example,
leaders may put into place policies to provide fairness for group members and to ensure a lack of bias (such as a process involving
checks and balances so that group members being considered for promotions or new job opportunities compete on an equal footing
with one another). A specific practical illustration of facilitating equity and belongingness among group members could involve
leaders finding opportunities to demonstrate that work group members with physical disabilities are not representative of stereotypes
(e.g., helpless, unsociable, inferior) and that these individuals instead are similar to others in the group (Stone & Colella, 1996).
Finally, shared decision-making with an emphasis on sharing power, broadening consultation on decisions, and helping decide how
work is conducted is also important to creating a sense of belongingness (Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006;
Nishii, 2013; Roberson, 2006). Inclusive leaders can, for example, ask for group-wide participation when making major decisions and
give work group members opportunities to discuss how to integrate the perspectives offered. Alternatively, ensuring decision-making
control is distributed over specified aspects of the work allows for inclusion across the group's tasks or responsibilities. Other practices
could include instituting points in the group's process when group members share information and make decisions jointly on next
steps, or developing a check list that ensures that participation in decision-making has been truly shared within or across tasks. By
creating decision-making sharing practices that become a part of the group's norms, leaders can embed inclusion into the contextual
make-up of the group.

3.2. Indicating value for uniqueness

Although the literature on inclusion has tended to emphasize belongingness more than uniqueness, leader behaviors indicating
value for uniqueness (e.g., what an individual brings to the work group that others do not have in common with him/her, including
identities and perspectives) are equally important. We propose that 1) encouraging diverse contributions to the work group and 2)
helping group members fully offer their unique talents and perspectives to enhance the work of the group are central behaviors to
indicating value for uniqueness. Indicating value for uniqueness provides group members not only with the opportunity for self-
definition, but also with a sense of self-worth that otherwise is lacking when only encouraging perceptions of belongingness (Brewer,
1991; Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004).
Encouraging diverse contributions is important to creating a sense that uniqueness is valued (e.g., Mor Barak & Daya, 2014; Shore
et al., 2011; Winters, 2014). By paying special attention to soliciting different points of view and approaches, inclusive leaders are
able to support perspectives and orientations that are not the norm but that contribute to performance. For example, an older work
group member who is new to the organization could be encouraged to offer a perspective on how similar work problems have been
successfully dealt with in the past at his or her previous employers, such that his or her experience and perspective is introduced into
a group's discussion. Such an approach increases uncertainty since a new or alternative way of doing things may not be successful and
the process of questioning shared assumptions and norms may result in social rejection of either the leader or of individuals whose
diverse contributions are voiced (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). Thus, an inclusive leader must carefully consider how best to

4
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

support diversity while also constructively managing any conflict that may arise. In addition, an inclusive leader can encourage
diverse contributions by creating “an environment that acknowledges, welcomes, and accepts different approaches, styles, per-
spectives, and experiences” (Winters, 2014, p. 206). An inclusive leader can create such a welcoming environment by, for example,
forming positive, individualized relationships with members and recognizing the way that each individual is able and willing to
contribute, which should increase group members' comfort in providing diverse perspectives to the group.
Helping group members fully contribute indicates value for uniqueness by encouraging individuals who otherwise might not feel that
their contributions are welcome (Roberson, 2006). For example, a leader might ask group members to write down ideas and share
them one by one to ensure that all voices are heard, including those of members who are newer to the group, who are more
introverted, and/or who would be less likely to speak up given their cultural background. Speaking with each group member pri-
vately to understand their strengths and preferences and then taking into account this knowledge would also help group members to
fully contribute. Helping group members to fully contribute also could involve supporting those who may need to complete tasks in
non-traditional ways due to disabilities or determining alternative approaches to reaching goals that recognize the different ways in
which group members can contribute. Finally, it might also include leader efforts to ensure that group members perceive that they
can bring their full selves to work and do not need to downplay or hide any differences that could ultimately add value and help drive
the performance of the group. Thus, these two leader behaviors indicate value for uniqueness in distinct ways with the former
ensuring that different points of view are represented while the latter involves making sure that group members do not hold back or
encounter obstacles in contributing to the group.

4. Inclusive leadership vis a vis other leadership styles

Although several existing leadership styles have the potential to incorporate an inclusive component to facilitate buy-in and
commitment to a common goal (Yukl, 2013), inclusive leadership both facilitates belongingness and indicates value for uniqueness in
ways that are not fully addressed by other leadership styles. We highlight key points of comparison between inclusive leadership and
other forms of leadership that could be seen as being conceptually related to inclusive leadership in Table 1 and below.
For example, transformational leaders may use their vision to enhance member commitment to shared organizational goals (Bass,
2008). Yet, transformational leadership is not necessarily inclusive in nature. For example, many leaders share visions that focus
more on their greatness, charisma, and future success, and do not facilitate member perceptions of belongingness in an inclusive
manner (cf., Galvin, Waldman, & Balthazard, 2010). Further, leaders' communication about their visions does not typically involve
acknowledging members' uniqueness. Transformational leadership has a different focus than inclusive leadership in that it relies on
the transformation of members to help them “transcend their own immediate self-interest for the sake of the mission and vision of the
organization” (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 27). Although transformational leaders may value the individual, transformational leadership's
ability to achieve outcomes relies on “continuous people improvement” and a degree of assimilation of the members into the col-
lective through the leader's ability to “diagnose, meet, and elevate the needs” of the members to align with those of the collective
(Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 28). In addition, transformational leaders “wield much power and influence over their followers” through
idealized influence (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 28). By comparison, inclusive leaders are likely to focus on facilitation and support of
member perceptions of belongingness and uniqueness in order to allow group members to fully contribute to the success of the group.
Unlike transformational leadership, inclusive leadership helps group members feel that they belong without changing key identities
and that they can contribute their uniqueness to group efforts.
Empowering leadership, which can be defined as power sharing with followers to increase intrinsic motivation, can be manifested
through role modeling, coaching, and willingness to provide explanations for the organization's rules and goals (Srivastava,
Bartol, & Locke, 2006). Empowering leadership focuses on facilitating members' control over their own decisions and goals, but does
not involve behaviors that facilitate members feeling a sense of belonging within the work group as inclusive leadership does. It is
interesting to note, however, that empowering leadership may achieve its aims more fully by incorporating inclusive leadership to
help group members feel that their work is meaningful and encouraging member contributions (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005).
Inclusive leadership also includes foci that are not fully addressed by servant leadership. Servant leadership has been con-
ceptualized as a leadership style that deemphasizes the self-interests of the leader and instead focuses on the leader's moral re-
sponsibility to create success for the organization, members, and other stakeholders such as customers and the community (Ehrhart,
2004; Greenleaf, 1977). Although several of Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson's (2008) dimensions of servant leadership seem to
imply inclusiveness (e.g., showing sensitivity), they appear to be more about developing and providing opportunities for members,
rather than necessarily helping individuals feel a sense of belongingness or the ability to display their uniqueness while working on
group tasks. For example, a young African-American woman and a middle-age White male might both receive mentoring and be
provided with opportunities to develop and progress in their careers by their group leader who is sensitive to their needs and
interests, which would likely be aligned with a servant leadership approach. However, the woman might never truly feel as en-
couraged to play a role in contributing to the work group while the ways in which the man is unique may not be valued and brought
to light as would be the case with an inclusive leader. Both employees may feel that elements of their identity must be downplayed in
order to be perceived as competent in their roles despite the other merits of a servant leadership approach. In addition, inclusive
leadership is not explicitly focused on external stakeholders nor does it take on a necessarily moral perspective in the manner that
servant leadership does.
Authentic leadership also may have some overlap with inclusive leadership, as well as having many aspects that are distinct (cf.,
Boekhorst, 2015). Authentic leadership has been defined as “behavior that draws upon and promotes both positive psychological
capacities and a positive ethical climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of

5
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Inclusive leadership and other forms of leadership.

Leadership construct Characteristics Sample behaviors Key differences with inclusive leadership

Inclusive leadership Behaviors that collectively facilitate all group - Supporting individuals as group N/A
members' perceptions of belongingness to the members
work group and that encourage group - Ensuring justice and equity within
members contributing their uniqueness to the group
achieving positive group outcomes - Promoting individuals' diverse
contributions to the group
- Helping individuals fully provide
their unique perspectives, and
abilities to the work of the group
Transformational Influences members “by broadening and - Challenging member assumptions Transformational leadership is focused
leadership elevating followers' goals and providing them - Sharing compelling vision on motivating and developing members
with confidence to perform beyond the - Developing members based on the organization's needs while
expectations specified in the implicit or - Establishing difficult goals (Bass, inclusive leadership is focused on
explicit exchange agreement” (Dvir, Eden, 2008; Dvir et al., 2002) accepting members for who they are and
Avolio, & Shamir, 2002: 735). allowing them to contribute their unique
abilities and perspectives
Empowering “Behaviors whereby power is shared with - Leading by example Empowering leadership relies on the
leadership subordinates and that raise their level of - Teaching how to solve problems sharing of power, teaching and coaching,
intrinsic motivation” (Srivastava, - Coaching whereas inclusive leadership fosters
Bartol, & Locke, 2006: 1240) - Showing that he/she cares (Arnold, belongingness and a sense that the
Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000; individual can contribute based on what
Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006) makes him or her unique
Servant leadership Deemphasizes the self-interests of the - Behaving ethically Servant leadership focuses on developing
individual in the leader role and instead is - Putting members first and creating success for the members but
focused on the moral responsibility of the - Helping members grow and succeed not necessarily on tending to member
individual to create success for the - Creating value for the community needs for work group belonging or
organization, members, and other (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, uniqueness
stakeholders such as customers, and the 2008)
community (Ehrhart, 2004; Greenleaf, 1977)
Authentic leadership “Behavior that draws upon and promotes both - Telling members the hard truth Authentic leadership relies on authentic
positive psychological capacities and a - Displaying genuine emotions leader actions and behaviors. In contrast
positive ethical climate, to foster greater self- - Making decisions based on core inclusive leadership is focused on
awareness, an internalized moral perspective, values ensuring the members experience
balanced processing of information, and - Listening carefully (Walumbwa acceptance and are able to contribute
relational transparency on the part of leaders et al., 2008) their unique talents and perspectives
working with followers, fostering positive
self-development” (Walumbwa, Avolio,
Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008, p. 94)
Leader-member Explains that leaders form relationships with - Helping members know where they LMX is focused on facilitating the positive
exchange members that vary in quality, and that these stand with him/her exchange of resources and support
relationships “reflect the extent to which the - Understanding member problems between leaders and members. In
leader and subordinate exchange resources and needs contrast, inclusive leadership creates
and support beyond what is expected based - Recognizing member potential feelings of belongingness and a sense that
on the formal employment contract” (Liden, - Helping member overcome problems the individual's ability to contribute his
Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006, p 723) (Scandura & Graen, 1984) or her uniqueness is valued and
welcomed by the organization

Note. Potential moderators of the relationships are reviewed in the Discussion section of the manuscript.

information, and relational transparency on the part of leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development”
(Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008, p. 94). As is apparent from its definition, it is largely a self-based approach
to leadership in that it hinges on the leader being authentic to who he or she is in his or her interactions with others (e.g., “makes
decisions based on his/her core beliefs”), rather than focusing on allowing and/or encouraging authenticity in others (Walumbwa,
Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008, p. 121). Thus, although a leader might engage in inclusive leadership in a way that is
authentic, inclusive leadership focuses on facilitating a group environment in which members experience the fulfillment of be-
longingness and uniqueness needs within the work group whereas authentic leadership emphasizes a leader's behavior in relation to
his or her true self.
Finally, inclusive leadership bears comparison with Leader-Member Exchange (LMX). LMX theory explains that leaders form
relationships that vary in quality from one member to another (Liden, Erdogan, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2006). Measurement of LMX
tends to focus on elements of the exchange such as level of understanding, willingness to help and/or defend one another, and
effectiveness of the working relationship (e.g., Scandura & Graen, 1984). Although a manager who has a high-quality LMX re-
lationship with all the members of his/her group might be thought to be inclusive (cf. Nishi & Mayer, 2009), a high-quality LMX
relationship does not necessarily imply inclusive leadership. For instance, a manager could engage in behaviors that are core to a
high-quality leader-member exchange, such as helping members of the work group to know where they stand with him/her, un-
derstanding their problems and needs, recognizing their potential, being inclined to help them work through problems, and having an

6
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

effective relationship (Scandura & Graen, 1984), and still not be engaging in inclusive leadership since these behaviors may not
contribute to perceptions of belongingness to the work group or to feeling that differences are valued within the work group. Further,
LMX focuses on the dyadic relationship between leader and member while inclusive leadership, as we conceptualize it, emphasizes
the members in relation to the work group.
In sum, inclusive leadership has minimal overlap with existing conceptualizations of leadership and the key tenets of inclusive
leadership are not fully captured by other leadership styles. Most notably among the differences discussed above, relative to inclusive
leadership, other forms of leadership place much less emphasis on an individual's perceptions of belongingness and value for un-
iqueness specifically in relation to the work group via behaviors that incorporate all members within the work group and promote
their diverse contributions and abilities.

5. Theory and propositions

In this section, we introduce propositions related to our theoretical model. First, we propose that several leader individual
difference factors are related to inclusive leadership. We then present propositions related to outcomes of inclusive leadership and
how those outcomes are related to member behavioral outcomes.

5.1. Leader individual difference factors

As shown in Fig. 1, we propose that there are individual difference characteristics that have the potential to increase an in-
dividual's propensity to engage in inclusive leadership behaviors. Specifically, pro-diversity beliefs, humility, and cognitive com-
plexity should increase the likelihood that individuals will engage in inclusive leadership. As we explain further in the arguments
preceding the propositions, social identity theory provides a theoretical grounding for these antecedents of inclusive leadership, as
each of them focuses leaders' attention towards the group and its goals (Hirst, Van Dick, & Van Knippenberg, 2009; Hogg & Terry,
2000). At the same time, we extend social identity theory by indicating how it is possible to value individuals' uniqueness within the
group while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of belongingness in the overall group. Although these three individual
differences are distinct from one another, they share in common the tendency to perceive opportunities to increase a sense of
belongingness among team members as well as to view uniqueness as having the potential for creating value even when the per-
spectives resulting from uniqueness may be counter to prevailing norms or the leader's own opinions.
First, we consider pro-diversity beliefs as a factor that increases the propensity for individuals to engage in inclusive leadership.
Individuals hold varying views regarding the benefits and drawbacks of diversity in work groups (van Knippenberg & Haslam, 2003).
Some individuals perceive diversity as inherently positive to the functioning of work groups. They see diversity as creating value by
adding richness through alternative insights, perspectives, and competencies (c.f., van Knippenberg, Haslam, & Platow, 2007). In
contrast, other individuals may view diversity in a more negative light, as creating conflict, adding unnecessary complexity, chal-
lenging established group norms, and threatening shared group identities (c.f., van Knippenberg, Haslam, & Platow, 2007). In-
dividuals who perceive diversity as being positive for group outcomes are thought to have pro-diversity beliefs (Homan, van
Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007). Beliefs regarding diversity are thought to stem from factors such as previous experiences
(including socialization, education, exposure to other cultures, or involvement in tasks in which diverse perspectives are needed) and
personality attributes (such as openness to experience and tolerance for ambiguity) (Hentschel, Shemla, Wegge, & Kearney, 2013;
Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007; van Knippenberg et al., 2007).
Pro-diversity beliefs are grounded in social identity theory in that they provide a way for leaders to engage in pursuing a positive
social identity for the group (Hogg & Terry, 2000). However, pro-diversity beliefs also recognize within-group differences of the
individual group members. For individuals in leadership positions, pro-diversity beliefs should be positively associated with openness
to diversity and a desire to incorporate diversity into their groups because of their perceptions that diversity will have a positive
influence on group outcomes (c.f., Homan et al., 2007). This positive affect towards diversity should facilitate a mental openness
towards diversity that will allow leaders to understand how to create a greater sense of belongingness in the work group and how to
incorporate the many ways in which individuals are diverse, such as gender, racio-ethnicity, cultural background, and age, to name
only a few (Stone-Romero, Stone, & Salas, 2003). It also should be associated with leaders valuing individuals' potentially unique
contributions that are rooted in their diverse backgrounds and identities. This positive relationship should stem from leaders' desire to
find opportunities where diversity exists and create avenues to integrate those opportunities into their work groups.
Proposition 1a. Leader pro-diversity beliefs will be positively related to inclusive leadership.
Leader humility also may increase the likelihood that an individual will engage in inclusive leadership. Humility has been de-
scribed as a self-view that involves accepting that one is “not the center of the universe” in his or her relationships with others
(Nielsen, Marrone, & Slay, 2010, p. 34). It has been conceptualized as involving a high level of clarity regarding one's identity,
strengths, and weaknesses (Nielsen, Marrone, & Slay, 2010). It also is tied to positive tendencies, such as a high level of self-
awareness, low self-focus, empathy, as well as an openness and appreciation for others (Davis et al., 2011; Ou, Tsui, Kinicki,
Waldman, Xiao, & Song, 2014). Leaders with this self-view are likely to have a high awareness of others, which is consistent with
social identity theory's emphasis on depersonalization such that the group (rather than the leader) is the focus of concern (Turner,
Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). At the same time, leader humility goes beyond social identity theory by highlighting that
leaders recognize group members' uniqueness and do not see such uniqueness as a threat to themselves or to the group.
Humility should be positively associated with a propensity to engage in inclusive leadership as it involves leaders being likely to

7
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

be welcoming of others and see and appreciate the unique strengths of their members. Humble leaders will not be threatened by
members' differences, or strengths and abilities that may be different from their own, and will therefore be likely to observe ways to
integrate member uniqueness into the group. Humble leaders will be especially prone to see the needs of others and understand ways
to incorporate others and the unique talents of individuals into the group's functioning because of their own self-awareness.
Proposition 1b. Leader humility will be positively related to inclusive leadership.
Finally, cognitive complexity should increase the likelihood that an individual would engage in inclusive leadership. Cognitive
complexity describes an individual's ability to perceive the behavior and social information of others in a multidimensional manner
(Bieri, 1955; Dierdorff & Rubin, 2007). People with a high level of cognitive complexity see individuals in groups as distinct, each
possessing both positive and negative traits that make them different (Bieri, 1955). They are able to perceive people in this manner
because of highly differentiated mental systems of dimensions that are cognitively available to categorize others (Bieri, 1955;
Tripodi & Bieri, 1966). Social identity theory provides theoretical justification for this antecedent in that the underlying motivation
involved in cognitive complexity is evaluating the social identity of the group in a positive manner (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Cognitive
complexity offers an extension of social identity theory, however, by accentuating that group members do not need to adhere to a set
group prototype, but instead may allow for positive evaluation of the group through qualities that are unique relative to other group
members.
Leaders with high levels of cognitive complexity are likely to recognize member strengths even while perceiving limitations rather
than applying a one-dimensional view that may minimize member abilities to contribute. Cognitively complex leaders will likely be
sensitive to member desires and how the complexity associated with group dynamics may need to be managed in order to help
members concurrently feel a sense of belongingness while allowing them to feel that they can retain what makes them unique. Such
leaders also will tend to be able to perceive how complex social processes are likely to unfold over time, and how best to incorporate
unique strengths and perspectives for the betterment of the group and the organization.
Proposition 1c. Leader cognitive complexity will be positively related to inclusive leadership.

5.2. Inclusive leadership behaviors and member perceptions of inclusion

When leaders engage in behaviors that facilitate belongingness and/or indicate value for uniqueness, members should perceive
that they are included in their work group. From a social identity-based leadership perspective, members tend to feel a part of groups
when leaders engage in behaviors that are group-oriented such as involving members and ensuring their perspectives are in-
corporated (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Leaders who engage in behaviors that signal concern with the group and its members
not only suggest that the leader is one with the group, but also that members are esteemed themselves and thus perceive a sense of
inclusion. In addition, social information processing theory suggests that perceptions of inclusion can occur as a result of work group
members sharing with one another their experiences with their leader and consequently constructing a shared interpretation of their
leader as acting inclusively (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Through repeated interactions with their leader which are relayed to fellow
group members, work group members converge on a common understanding of their experience as involving efforts towards fa-
cilitating their belongingness and uniqueness needs. This common understanding of the leader is likely to result in members labeling
their leaders' behaviors as inclusive, which creates the experience of feeling included for work group members (Lord & Maher, 1993).
The three leader behaviors proposed above that facilitate belongingness should contribute to satisfying members' need to belong
and thus contribute to their perceptions of inclusion (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). First, leaders who support individuals as group
members (e.g., by providing assistance and backing ideas) make it clear that in drawing the boundaries of who is part of the group,
these individuals belong to the group. This signals acceptance as a group member and provides individuals with a sense of belonging
that is integral to perceptions of inclusion (Stamper & Masterson, 2002). Supporting individuals as group members contributes to
members' perceived immersion within a group and thus to feelings of being a part of the group (Turner et al., 1987). Inclusive leaders'
efforts to ensure justice and equity indicate to members that they are respected members by the group according to the group-value
model of procedural justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Second, fair and equitable treatment by leaders communicates how members are
connected to their group and thus contributes to a sense of belonging (Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996). Inclusive leaders also utilize
shared decision-making, which has been found to increase members' sense of psychological ownership and consequently their sense
of inclusion in the group (Liu, Wang, Hui, & Lee, 2012; Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004). Finally, when members share in decision making,
they experience interdependence with others in the group, which is an antecedent of feelings of belonging as posited by Easterbrook
and Vignoles (2013).
Leader behaviors that emphasize value for uniqueness contribute to members' perceptions that they are valued for their unique
qualities and perspectives, which should yield perceptions of inclusion. By encouraging diverse contributions from group members,
leaders ask for information and perspectives that make group members unique and thus create perceptions that group members are
valued for what makes them different from other group members. By facilitating a discussion of divergent viewpoints, inclusive
leaders are able to encourage members' perception that unique perspectives are welcome (Kearney & Gebert, 2009). In addition,
when leaders encourage member perceptions of uniqueness by helping individuals fully contribute, leaders get to know individuals so
that they can facilitate their unique contributions. Group members take note of efforts made by leaders to get to know them as
individuals; in fact, self-verification theory posits that individuals strive to be understood for what makes them individuals (Swann,
Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004). Group members thus realize the goal of self-verification (having others see them as they see themselves)
and perceive that their individual qualities are valued when leaders engage in behaviors that indicate value for uniqueness.

8
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Proposition 2. Inclusive leadership (i.e., leadership that facilitates belongingness by supporting individuals as group members,
ensuring justice and equity, and utilizing shared decision-making and that values uniqueness by encouraging diverse contributions
and helping individuals fully contribute) will be positively related to member perceptions of inclusion.

5.3. Outcomes of perceptions of inclusion

Member perceptions of inclusion in a work group are likely to ultimately lead to positive outcomes that benefit the work group.
However, we propose that the relationship between member perceptions of inclusion and positive behavioral outcomes is indirect.
When members perceive a high degree of inclusion within their work group, they are likely to identify strongly with their work group
and feel psychologically empowered (as shown in Fig. 1). Accordingly, inclusion (i.e., belongingness and uniqueness) should have a
positive impact on work group identification and psychological empowerment, which in turn should lead to positive behavioral
outcomes.

5.3.1. Work group identification

When individuals perceive that they belong in their work group and that their unique contributions are valued, they are likely to
have strong relationships with their group members and ultimately these positive relationships should influence how they see
themselves in relation to their work group. These feelings and associations with the work group should result in individuals in-
corporating the identity of the work group with their own identity (i.e., work group identification). Individuals who have strong work
group identification have a perception of oneness with their work group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). They ex-
perience the successes and failures of the work group as their own (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Further, a high level of work group
identification cultivates intergroup comparisons that result in favorable views of one's own group (and thus higher self-esteem for the
individual) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
Because individuals with strong work group identification wish to contribute to the group with which they identify, our model
depicts work group identification as being positively related to creativity and job performance while being negatively related to
turnover. Empirical support has been found for work group identification being positively related to creativity (Yu & Frenkel, 2013)
and negatively related to turnover intentions (Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006; Van Knippenberg & Van Schie, 2000). The focus that
individuals with strong work group identification have on whether their group performs better than other groups also may stimulate
a high level of performance and creativity (Kim & Glomb, 2014).
Proposition 3. Member perceptions of inclusion will be positively related to behavioral outcomes (e.g., creativity, job performance,
and reduced turnover) indirectly through work group identification.

5.3.2. Psychological empowerment

Individuals who are psychologically empowered feel that they have an impact and that they have control over their activities
(Spreitzer, 1995). Inclusive leaders indicate to group members that their perspectives are welcome and valued, thereby providing a
sense that group members have both impact and control. This line of reasoning is consistent with research suggesting that experi-
encing influence in the workplace strengthens perceptions of competence and control (Boudrias, Morin, & LaJoie, 2014). When
individuals hold perceptions of inclusion, the opportunities they have for expressing their opinions and offering contributions to
work-related decisions provide for psychological empowerment.
Theorists contend that employees who feel empowered will show high levels of involvement with their jobs and will take in-
itiative at work (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 2008). Thus, work group members who are empowered as a result of feeling
included are likely to engage in behaviors that reflect involvement and initiative, ultimately improving performance. For example,
employees who experience psychological empowerment have been found to engage in voice-related behaviors, such as identifying
issues and providing constructive comments to improve the organization (Frazier & Fainshmidt, 2012; Raub & Robert, 2012). In
addition, multiple empirical studies have shown that employees display high levels of creativity when they feel psychologically
empowered (Pan, Sun, & Chow, 2012; Sun, Zhang, Qi, & Chen, 2012). For example, Zhang and Bartol (2010) found that psychological
empowerment positively influenced creative process engagement, which then increased creativity. Furthermore, a consistent positive
relationship has been obtained across studies between empowerment and employee job performance (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer,
Allen, & Rosen, 2007; Zhou, Wang, Chen, & Shi, 2012), including a study using a time-lagged design (Maynard, Luciano, D'Innocenzo,
Mathieu, & Dean, 2014). Finally, empowerment has been shown to be negatively related to employees' voluntary turnover such that
employees who felt empowered were more likely to stay with their team or organization for a longer period of time (Harris,
Wheeler, & Kacmar, 2009; Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011), thus allowing for a greater likelihood for groups to glean performance
benefits. Therefore, we propose:
Proposition 4. Member perceptions of inclusion will be positively related to behavioral outcomes (e.g., creativity, job performance,
and reduced turnover) indirectly through work psychological empowerment.

6. Discussion

Our model expands theory and understanding of inclusive leadership in several ways, including identifying individual difference

9
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

characteristics associated with inclusive leaders and clarifying specific behaviors in which inclusive leaders engage. These specific
inclusive leader behaviors are proposed to lead to member perceptions of inclusion (in terms of belongingness and being valued for
uniqueness). In turn, inclusion perceptions lead to member work group identification and psychological empowerment and beha-
vioral outcomes (e.g., creativity, job performance, reduced turnover). Our efforts extend theoretical work on inclusion in the domain
of leadership and extend work on leadership by explicating more clearly how leaders can create inclusion in work groups.

6.1. Theoretical implications

We offer a model of inclusive leadership that provides theoretical grounding to the construct. Although the literature suggests that
leadership can help diverse groups function more effectively (Homan & Greer, 2013), the mechanisms underlying leader behaviors
that increase the likelihood of success among diverse groups have yet to be established. We believe that leader behaviors that ensure
that group members perceive that they both belong and are valued for their uniqueness are what form the basis of positive leader
effects on individual perceptions of work group inclusion and on the performance of diverse work groups. To date, there have been
few attempts to define the role of the leader in facilitating the success of diverse work groups (Nishii & Mayer, 2009). We advance
theory that not only delineates a leader's role with respect to diverse groups, but also is oriented towards ensuring the inclusion of all
group members (both historically underrepresented members as well as those in the societal majority) in achieving a high level of
performance.
Our model is grounded in optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991; an extension of social identity theory), but it also is
suggestive of several ways in which social identity theory might be bolstered to assist leaders in maximizing inclusion within diverse
work groups. Social identity theory highlights the importance of group members' similarity to a group prototype; future research
could consider how flexibility with respect to the group prototype could be realized in order to maintain feelings of belongingness to
the social identity of the group while also recognizing individuals' uniqueness (in terms of their personal identities). Our model
demonstrates how distinctiveness within the group also could be beneficial beyond social identity theory's focus on intergroup
distinctiveness. In addition, it is suggestive of how positive self-esteem, which is a motivating force in social identity theory, can be
accomplished not only by feeling a sense of belonging to the group, but also by feeling valued for uniqueness. In this way, our model
includes an emphasis on group members feeling valued for being unique relative to each other, which is not highlighted in social
identity theory.
Our model contributes to theory on work group identification and empowerment by positing a linkage between these variables
and inclusion. While the relationship between work group identification and belongingness has received some research attention
(e.g., Richter, West, Van Dick, & Dawson, 2006), uniqueness has been examined far less frequently in relation to group identification.
One exception is Hornsey and Jetten (2004) who theorized strategies for maintaining group identification while maximizing the
distinctiveness of a group with an emphasis on structural strategies, such as identifying with groups that differ from the mainstream.
We extend their work by proposing how fostering inclusion within a work group (with attention paid to both belonging and un-
iqueness needs) encourages work group identification with particular attention to the role of leaders in this process. The relationship
between inclusion and psychological empowerment has not been theoretically advanced even though the inclusion literature has
discussed participation in decision-making, which is conceptually related to empowerment (Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998; Spreitzer,
1995). We not only suggest how inclusion and empowerment relate theoretically but also propose behaviors that leaders can engage
in that can lead to empowerment through inclusion.
Research on inclusion has been on the rise in recent years as a means to better support individuals of a multitude of backgrounds
as members of work groups and organizations (Cottrill, Lopez, & Hoffman, 2014; Nishii, 2013). The model proposed here contributes
to this literature by providing a framework grounded in theory on inclusion (Shore et al., 2011) that applies specifically to leaders.
One of the ways that this framework adds to theory on diversity and inclusion is by delineating antecedents to inclusive leadership in
order to understand the role of leader individual difference characteristics in predicting inclusive leader behavior. The diversity and
inclusion literatures have not adequately addressed how leaders' individual characteristics might impact their behaviors and con-
tribute to leading diverse groups effectively.
The model proposed here also contributes to theory on work groups by suggesting specific leadership behaviors that can help to
alleviate the double-edged sword involved in diverse work groups, which results from opportunities for creativity through different
perspectives at the cost of group members finding it difficult to identify with the work group due to its diversity (Chi, Huang, & Lin,
2009; Milliken & Martins, 1996). Our framework suggests how leaders can increase group members' sense of belonging to the group
(thereby remedying challenges to group identification that might be present) while simultaneously valuing diverse perspectives so
that key personal identities are recognized. As inclusive leaders engage in these behaviors proactively and focus their attention on all
members, their approach goes beyond diversity management by directing inclusion to every member of the group.

6.2. Practical implications

Our framework suggests that inclusive leadership occurs through specific behaviors that facilitate belongingness and indicate
value for uniqueness. All five of the behaviors proposed in the framework are important, but the two behaviors that indicate value for
uniqueness (encouraging diverse contributions and helping group members fully contribute) may require more effort and attention
since leaders more commonly are trained to focus on pursuing collective goals (e.g., Carter, DeChurch, & Braun, 2015). Encouraging
diverse contributions, for instance, requires seeking out divergent perspectives in ways that may be challenging (by involving a
lengthier group process as uncommon views are solicited). It is critical that inclusion is supported at all organizational levels but

10
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

particularly by top management (Sabharwal, 2014). Inclusive leaders can serve as role models who mentor others in ways that
facilitate inclusion experiences among organizational members. Leaders at all organizational levels can also directly reinforce be-
haviors that support inclusion experiences and contribute to a climate of inclusion.
It is important to note how managers might engage in inclusive leadership in ways that differ from diversity management, which
tends to focus on legal compliance and enhancing representativeness of the work force. Unfortunately, many efforts in the name of
diversity management have failed to reap the benefits of having diverse employees, especially as related to performance. Although
women and minorities are in greater numbers at lower levels of organizations and that representation decreases at higher organi-
zational levels (Catalyst, 2013), there are clear financial benefits, not to mention human benefits, of diversity that can be realized at
all organizational levels. Simply placing individuals who differ from one another in a work group or promoting diverse individuals
into leadership positions does not ensure positive outcomes. However, leader inclusion can help to support the benefits of diversity by
building the capabilities of group members to work together successfully through contributing to inclusive organizational en-
vironments and group performance.

6.3. Research implications

6.3.1. Measurement of inclusive leadership

Future research efforts might develop a measure of inclusive leadership based upon the theoretical foundation presented here. A
robust measure could be developed using our conceptualization of the inclusive leadership behaviors identified above. Such a
measure would need to assess the leader's engagement in behaviors that facilitate belongingness and value uniqueness (e.g., sup-
porting individuals as group members, ensuring justice and equity, sharing in the decision making process, encouraging diverse
contributions, and helping group members to fully contribute). The core relationships in our model could be tested once a measure of
inclusive leadership is empirically validated.

6.3.2. Contextual considerations

Future research could then investigate potential contextual influences on the strength of some of the relationships in our model.
One such influence would be organizational climate, or “the shared meaning organizational members attach to the events, policies,
practices, and procedures they see being rewarded, supported, and expected” (Ehrhart, Schneider, & Macey, 2014, p. 2). For example,
Apple's decision not to offer on-site daycare at its new headquarters could send the signal to employees that all employees are not in
fact included, which could undermine the efforts of inclusive leaders within the organization (Locker, 2017). Future research could
consider how an organizational climate for diversity and/or inclusion could influence the positive relationship between the proposed
leader individual difference characteristics and inclusive leadership behaviors. Another possible role for organizational climate would
be to enhance the impact of a leader's inclusive behaviors on member perceptions of inclusion because the value of inclusion would
be communicated from multiple vantage points: the leader as well as the organization as a whole. This alignment between the leader's
behavior towards the work group and the organizational climate for inclusion should maximize member perceptions of inclusion in
that members would experience consistent messages encouraging inclusion.
Another potential contextual influence relevant to the relationships in our model could be the members themselves. That is, are
there member characteristics that would enhance the impact of an inclusive leader? If members themselves hold pro-diversity beliefs,
have high levels of humility, or are cognitively complex, for example, or if members are high on openness to experience, perhaps this
would bolster the effect of a leader's inclusive behaviors (Moss, McFarland, Ngu, & Kijowska, 2007). In addition, research could look
at the cascading effects of inclusive leadership (c.f., Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987) to see how inclusive leadership at the top
of the organization, or the lack thereof, influences inclusive leadership at lower levels in the organization.

6.3.3. Challenges of inclusive leadership

There are numerous challenges that inclusive leaders face that should be investigated in future research. One is to empirically
examine how belongingness and valuing uniqueness might have suboptimal consequences if they are not realized simultaneously. For
instance, leaders who behave in a manner that solely promotes a sense of belongingness may in fact encourage conformity, which
lowers the possibility of innovation. Likewise, if leaders encourage employees to display personal identities that make them unique
without also engaging in activities that support social identification that enhances belongingness, little productive work that supports
the group's goals may be enacted. In sum, leader behaviors that solely encourage fulfillment of needs for belongingness or needs for
uniqueness have the potential to undermine the potential benefits of diversity in a work group (Shore et al., 2011). Future research
could examine whether it is only when both belongingness and uniqueness are realized that inclusive leadership holds its maximum
potential.
Another challenge for inclusive leaders is to balance the value of uniqueness with other values that might serve as homogenizing
forces. For example, shared mental models (which involve group members holding common understandings of goals, tasks, and
processes) offer performance advantages and appear to be beneficial for leaders to encourage (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010).
However, shared mental models could be less than inclusionary with their emphasis on a uniform understanding. Exploring how
leaders balance the desire for developing a common understanding among group members while exhibiting inclusionary leader
behaviors is an interesting avenue for future research. Relatedly, future research might also look at how leaders balance belong-
ingness and uniqueness in groups where inclusion on every dimension of difference may not be possible, such as within faith-based
organizations, political organizations, or organizations based on beliefs that cannot be disputed by group members (such as values
involving human rights). In such contexts, certain forms of uniqueness may be antithetical to the group's missions and aims.

11
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Specifically, research could unpack how leaders navigate creating a sense of inclusion while maintaining core values and norms.
Another challenge for inclusive leaders that could be examined by researchers is how leaders (perhaps in collaboration with
Human Resources) might balance demands for efficiency and equity across group members with demands for ensuring the full
contribution of unique group members. Leader attempts to be more inclusive may result in equity concerns being raised on the part of
less understanding group members and/or a sense that the performance of the group is being compromised. Relatedly, inclusive
leadership involves behaviors that deviate at least somewhat from the agentic leadership qualities (being assertive or competitive)
that often are associated with men and with successful leadership (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Research is needed to determine whether
men who engage in inclusive leadership are seen as less effective than those who are more stereotypically assertive and whether
women who engage in inclusive leadership behaviors are liked due to adhering to communal gender roles but still are rated as less
effective for not exhibiting stereotypical leadership behaviors (cf., Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011).

6.3.4. Inclusive leadership from sources besides formal leaders

Our model also can inform future research on inclusive leadership by informal leaders. Inclusive leadership behaviors may be
exhibited by members as a result of observing such behaviors in either formal or informal leaders. Future research could explore
factors that contribute to the spread of inclusive behaviors among members and how such behaviors influence both individual and
group outcomes. Future research also might explore how informal leaders may be able to influence the group through the creation of
group norms such that their inclusive leadership behaviors signal that inclusive behaviors are desirable within the group as a whole
(Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). Formal leaders' inclusive leadership also may be impacted by informal leaders such as when several
board members at Ernst & Young took their CEO aside and pointed out that he had praised a male board member's idea when three
female board members had been ignored when they mentioned the same idea earlier in the same meeting (Groysberg & Connelly,
2013). The CEO found that to be an important moment of learning that shaped his future leadership behavior.

6.3.5. Cross-cultural implications

It is well established that culture affects workplace processes, including leadership (Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012).
While the needs for belongingness and uniqueness are considered universal (Gere & MacDonald, 2010; Snyder & Fromkin, 1980), how
these needs are fulfilled may vary according to culture (c.f., Song & Lee, 2013). Research is needed to examine the role of leaders in
enhancing inclusion in various cultural contexts while reflecting cultural elements that are considered socially appropriate. Relatedly,
a leader's cultural sensitivity or cultural intelligence should facilitate inclusion not only in organizations that operate in multinational
contexts, but also potentially in domestic organizations that operate in a multicultural environment (c.f., Earley & Ang, 2003;
Gelfand, Imai, & Fehr, 2008; Yates & de Oliveira, 2016).

7. Conclusion

As organizations become increasingly diverse, leaders need to understand how to perform their roles in ways that not only take
advantage of this diversity and maximize the performance of their work groups, but that also realize these goals through behaviors
that are inclusionary of all group members. Encouraging inclusive leadership behaviors holds promise for improving the work
experience of all work group members and the effectiveness of their groups and organizations.

References

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of empowering leader
behaviors on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 735–744.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring
leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249–270.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third edition manual and sampler set. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden Inc.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12, 73–87.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
497–529.
Bieri, J. (1955). Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 263–268.
Boekhorst, J. A. (2015). The role of authentic leadership in fostering workplace inclusion: A social information processing perspective. Human Resource Management,
54, 241–264.
Boudrias, J., Morin, A. J. S., & Lajoie, D. (2014). Directionality of the associations between psychological empowerment and behavioural involvement: A longitudinal
autoregressive cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 87, 437–463.
Brewer, M. B. (2012). Optimal distinctiveness theory: Its history and development. In P. A. M. VanLange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories
of social psychology (pp. 81–98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.
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, 250–260.
Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L. A., & Braun, M. T. (2015). Social network approaches to leadership: An integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100,
597–622.
Catalyst. (2013). 2013 Catalyst census: Fortune 500 women board directors. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/2013-catalyst-census-fortune-500-
women-board-directors.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 331–346.
Chi, N., Huang, Y., & Lin, S. (2009). A double-edged sword? Exploring the curvilinear relationship between organizational tenure diversity and team innovation: The

12
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

moderating role of team-oriented HR practices. Group & Organization Management, 34, 698–726.
Chrobot-Mason, D., & Ruderman, M. N. (2004). Leadership in a diverse workplace. In M. S. Stockdale, & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of
workplace diversity (pp. 100–121). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471–482.
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic minorities promoted to CEO? Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1080–1089.
Cottrill, K., Lopez, P. D., & Hoffman, C. C. (2014). How authentic leadership and inclusion benefit organizations. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal, 33, 275–292.
Davis, D., Hook, J., Worthington, E., Jr., Van Tongeren, D., Gartner, A., Jennings, D., II, & Emmons, R. (2011). Relational humility: Conceptualizing and measuring
humility as a personality judgment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 225–234.
DeChurch, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 32–53.
Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2007). Carelessness and discriminability in work role requirement judgments: Influences of role ambiguity and cognitive complexity.
Personnel Psychology, 60, 597–625.
DiTomaso, N., & Hooijberg, R. (1996). Diversity and the demands of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 163–187.
DiversityInc. (2017). The 2017 DiversityInc top 50 companies for diversity. http://www.diversityinc.com/the-diversityinc-top-50-companies-for-diversity-2017/
(Accessed June 28, 2017).
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 735–744.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Easterbrook, M., & Vignoles, V. L. (2013). What does it mean to belong? Interpersonal bonds and intragroup similarities as predictors of felt belonging in different
types of groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 455–462.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 960–974.
Ehrhart, M. G., Schneider, B., & Macey, W. H. (2014). Organizational climate and culture: An introduction to theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Frazier, M. L., & Fainshmidt, S. (2012). Voice climate, work outcomes, and the mediating role of psychological empowerment: A multilevel examination.
Group & Organization Management, 37, 691–715.
Galvin, B. M., Waldman, D. A., & Balthazard, P. (2010). Narcissism and visionary communication: An exploration into the antecedents of follower perceptions of
charismatic leadership. Personnel Psychology, 63, 509–537.
Gelfand, M. J., Imai, L., & Fehr, R. (2008). Thinking intelligently about cultural intelligence: The road ahead. In S. Ang, & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural
intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 375–387). New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Gere, J., & MacDonald, G. (2010). An update of the empirical case for the need to belong. Journal of Individual Psychology, 66, 93–115.
Giscombe, K., & Mattis, M. C. (2002). Leveling the playing field for women of color in corporate management: Is the business case enough? Journal of Business Ethics,
37, 103–119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Groysberg, B., & Connolly, K. (2013). Great leaders who make the mix work. Harvard Business Review, 91, 68–76.
Harris, J., Wheeler, A., & Kacmar, K. (2009). Leader-member exchange and empowerment: Direct and indirect effects of job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 371–382.
Hentschel, T., Shemla, M., Wegge, J., & Kearney, E. (2013). Perceived diversity and team functioning: The role of diversity beliefs and affect. Small Group Research, 44,
33–61.
Hirak, R., Peng, A., 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, 107–117.
Hirst, G., Van Dick, R., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identification perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,
963–982.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.
Hom, P. W., Roberson, L., & Ellis, A. D. (2008). Challenging conventional wisdom about who quits: Revelations from corporate America. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 1–34.
Homan, A. C., & Greer, L. L. (2013). Considering diversity: The positive effects of considerate leadership in diverse teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16,
105–125.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and
performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189–1199.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 8, 248–264.
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
77–89.
Kim, E., & Glomb, T. M. (2014). Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work group identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 619–634.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin,
137, 616–642.
Liden, R. C., Erdogan, B., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2006). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and task interdependence: Implications for individual and
group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 723–746.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The
Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.
Lind, E., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum.
Liu, J., Wang, H., Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2012). Psychological ownership: How having control matters. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 869–895.
Locker, M. (2017). Apple's new campus doesn't have a daycare and it's probably not by accident. Fast Companyhttps://news.fastcompany.com/apples-new-campus-doesnt-
have-a-daycare-and-its-probably-not-by-accident-4038194.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Maynard, T., Luciano, M., D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J., & Dean, M. (2014). Modeling time-lagged reciprocal psychological empowerment-performance relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1244–1253.
Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 402–433.
Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Parker, V., Giles, M., Chiang, V., & Joyce, P. (2015). Managing inclusiveness and diversity in teams: How leader inclusiveness affects per-
formance through status and team identity. Human Resource Management, 54, 217–239.
Mor Barak, M. E. (2000). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23, 47–68.
Mor Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion.
Administration in Social Work, 22, 47–64.
Mor Barak, M. E., & Daya, P. (2014). Fostering inclusion from the inside out to create an inclusive workplace: Corporate and organizational efforts in the community
and the global society. In B. M. Ferdman, & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 391–412). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moss, S. A., McFarland, J., Ngu, S., & Kijowska, A. (2007). Maintaining an open mind to closed individuals: The effect of resource availability and leadership style on
the association between openness to experience and organizational commitment. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 259–275.
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13–17.

13
A.E. Randel et al. Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

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, 941–966.
Nielsen, R., Marrone, J. A., & Slay, H. S. (2010). A new look at humility: Exploring the humility concept and its role in socialized charismatic leadership. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 33–43.
Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 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, 1412–1426.
Olkkonen, M., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unity, and group-related outcomes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202–215.
Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. (2014). Humble chief executive officers' connections to top management team integration
and middle managers' responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 34–72.
Pan, W., Sun, L., & Chow, I. (2012). Leader-member exchange and employee creativity: Test of a multilevel moderated mediation model. Human Performance, 25,
432–451.
Pelled, L. H., Ledford, G. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (1999). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 1013–1031.
Prime, J., & Salib, E. (2014). Inclusive leadership: The view from six countries. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/inclusive-leadership-view-six-
countries.
Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2012). Empowerment, organizational commitment, and voice behavior in the hospitality industry: Evidence from a multinational sample.
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54, 136–148.
Richter, A. W., West, M. A., Van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). Boundary spanners' identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 1252–1269.
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31, 212–236.
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1097–1130.
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43, 197–217.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224–253.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 428–436.
Seibert, S., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 981–1003.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Ehrhart, & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research.
Journal of Management, 37, 1262–1289.
Simons, T., Leroy, H., Collewaert, V., & Masschelein, S. (2015). How leader alignment of words and deeds affects followers: A meta-analysis of behavioral integrity
research. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 831–844.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York, NY: Plenum.
Song, D., & Lee, J. (2013). Balancing ‘we’ and ‘I’: Self-construal and an alternative approach to seeking uniqueness. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 12, 506–516.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
1442–1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than 20 years of research on empowerment at work. In J. Barling, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 54–72). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy
of Management Journal, 49, 1239–1251.
Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23, 875–894.
Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21, 352–401.
Stone-Romero, E. F., & Stone-D.L., & Salas, E. (2003). The influence of culture on role conceptions and role behavior in organisations. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 52, 328–362.
Sun, L., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 55–65.
Swann, W. B., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D. C., & Ko, S. J. (2004). Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 9–27.
Tajfel, H. H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24).
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tripodi, T., & Bieri, J. (1966). Cognitive complexity, perceived conflict, and certainty. Journal of Personality, 34, 144–153.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell
Ltd.
Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913–930.
Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 439–459.
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. Platow, & N. Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 61–77). New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2007). Unity through diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group identification. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 207–222.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. In R. M. Kramer, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (pp. 243–295). Oxford, England: Elsevier Ltd.
Van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73,
137–147.
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, 89–126.
Winters, M. (2014). From diversity to inclusion: An inclusion equation. In B. M. Ferdman, & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 205–228).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yates, J. F., & de Oliveira, S. (2016). Culture and decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 106–118.
Yu, C., & Frenkel, S. J. (2013). Explaining task performance and creativity from perceived organizational support theory: Which mechanisms are more important?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 1165–1181.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and
creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 107–128.
Zhou, L., Wang, M., Chen, G., & Shi, J. (2012). Supervisors' upward exchange relationships and subordinate outcomes: Testing the multilevel mediation role of
empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 668–680.

14