The Journal of Social Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/vsoc20

Inclusive leadership and voice behavior: The role

of psychological empowerment

Amjad Younas, Daoping Wang, Basharat Javed & Adnan Ul Haque

To cite this article: Amjad Younas, Daoping Wang, Basharat Javed & Adnan Ul Haque (2023)
Inclusive leadership and voice behavior: The role of psychological empowerment, The Journal
of Social Psychology, 163:2, 174-190, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2022.2026283

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2026283

Published online: 30 Jan 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3376

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 26 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsoc20
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
2023, VOL. 163, NO. 2, 174–190
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2022.2026283

Inclusive leadership and voice behavior: The role of psychological

empowerment
a
Amjad Younas , Daoping Wangb, Basharat Javedc, and Adnan Ul Haqued
a
Mohi-ud-din Islamic University; bUniversity of Science and Technology Beijing; cNamal University, Mianwali;
d
University of Wales Trinity Saint David, London Campus

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Although there have been studies in the past that have highlighted the Received 11 November 2019
important role of leadership in motivating employees to speak up, relational Accepted 27 December 2021
leadership has been scarcely investigated in this context. Therefore, the KEYWORDS
current research investigates the relationship between inclusive leadership, Inclusive leadership; voice
as a form of relational leadership, and employees’ voice behavior directly and behavior; psychological
indirectly via psychological empowerment. Using the data collected from empowerment; causal
252 employees and their respective supervisors working in cargo companies attribution theory
across the United Kingdom, this study finds a positive relationship between
inclusive leadership and voice behavior. The results further confirm the
mediating role of psychological empowerment in the relationship between
inclusive leadership and voice behavior. We use causal attribution theory to
support the findings and discuss implications for research and practice.

Introduction
In the current time of ever-changing environment, managers have to face many challenges at the
workplace. The pressure of new changes is the outcome of innovation in form of new work processes,
methods, and technology. Therefore, managers want employees who do not only show performance
related to job description but also out of way innovative performance which help them to handle the
pressure of new changes (Morrison, 2014; Vadrera et al., 2013). Employees’ proactive input with
innovative ideas and sharing of right information indicates their voice behavior which is a key to
compete in hyper, intense, dynamic, and ever-changing business landscape (Bindl & Parker, 2010;
Morrison, 2014). Here it is imperative to understand the research question when and how employees
show voice behavior at workplace. Voice behavior means challenging the existing status quo and
disagreeing with supervisor; consequently, employees often withhold their opinions and do not offer
unsolicited ideas (Ashford et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2018; Elsetouhi et al., 2018; Y. Qi & Ming-Xia,
2014), unless they have sufficient support from leadership (Morrison, 2011).
In this regard, researchers have identified different supportive leadership behaviors enhancing
voice behavior by providing a positive work environment, meaningfulness, individualized support,
and quality relationships (e.g., Chen et al., 2018; Islam et al., 2019; Jada & Mukhopadhyay, 2018;
Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018; Liang, 2017). However, apart from their significance, such
attributes represent different leadership styles (e.g., transformational, servant, empowering, ethical,
and authentic) and are reported in different studies in relationship with employees’ voice behavior.
Meanwhile, current research exclusively focused on a relational mode of leadership (Fletcher, 2004,
2007; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006) namely inclusive leadership (Carmeli et al., 2010), which
uniquely reflects the positive attributes and thereby provides a comprehensive approach to meet the
needs of voice behavior. Inclusive leadership represents “leaders who exhibit openness, accessibility,

CONTACT Amjad Younas amjad.younas@yahoo.com Mohi-ud-din Islamic University, Nerian Sharif, AJ&K Pakistan
© 2022 Taylor & Francis
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 175

and availability in their interactions with followers” (Carmeli et al., 2010, p. 250). Before proceeding
further, it is imperious to differentiate inclusive leadership from other leadership behaviors.
Inclusive leadership and transformational leadership have some common characteristics and seem
similar as both focus on the employees’ needs and value their concerns (Yin, 2013). However,
inclusive leadership is different because in transformational leadership the focus is only on leader­
ship initiatives, which is a leader-centric approach (Hollander, 2009; Javed, Abdullah et al., 2018;
Yin, 2013). Similarly, some characteristics of ethical, empowering, authentic, and servant leadership
also imply inclusiveness, however, these leadership behaviors consider follower characteristics as
homogenous where employees emphasized only leaders’ initiatives like charisma and character
(Lapierre et al., 2006; Martin et al., 2005; Maslyn et al., 2017), which do not fully address the foci
of inclusive leadership. Inclusive leadership stays ahead of these leadership concepts by satisfying
employees’ need of uniqueness and belongingness which enable them to perform better in the
current context (see, Randel et al., 2018). The leader centric approach is not conducive to achieve
the desired ends as it neglects the quality of leader-follower relationships (Day & Harrison, 2007;
Drath, 2001; Kahane, 2004), through which leader and employees mutually decide the goals with
a high level of trustworthiness (Carmeli et al., 2010; Cox et al., 2003; Schermuly et al., 2013; Uhl-
Bien, 2006).
There is very limited research we found which attempted the research question like how
inclusive leadership enhances voice behavior. More recently, Guo et al. (2020), J. Jiang et al.
(2020), Jolly and Lee (2020), and Lee and Dahinten (2021), and L. Qi and Liu (2017) examined
inclusive leadership-voice behavior relationship through caring ethical climate, need for compe­
tence, need for relatedness, leader-member exchange, psychological safety, and leader identification,
yet there is need to explore more mechanism to understand when such leadership behavior
effectively predicts voice behavior. Voice behavior technically is not part of job requirements and
is required when employees encounter a problem that needs attention to address before it gets
dangerous, therefore employees need sufficient motivation to show this extra-role behavior (Raub &
Robert, 2013). Psychologically empowered employees are intrinsically motivated and felt confident
about their significant impact on the organization (Spreitzer, 1995). Spreitzer et al. (1999) stated
that when employees believed that their intrinsic needs are fulfilled, they show more inclination
toward influencing change above their levels (i.e., voice behavior). In exercising such behaviors
these employees felt a sense of control and perceived the responsiveness of the environment against
their efforts as self-determination (Porter et al., 2003). Thus, with psychological empowerment,
employees come up with ideas and concerns to address complex and dynamic situations. Inclusive
leaders are seen as doing things with employees (Hollander, 2012) which indicates the situation of
power dissimilarities (Nishii & Mayer, 2009) where employees have shared the authority and
autonomy to decide their work activities. Through the value of inclusion, they are welcomed to
raise voices (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006) which enhances the employees’ psychological
empowerment to get involved in risky behaviors (here it is voice behavior; Javed, Abdullah et al.,
2018).
According to causal attribution theory, individuals’ attitudes and behaviors changed by attributed
causes of events or by others’ behaviors (Weiner, 1986). In general, individuals try to make sense of
their relationships and their surroundings by attributing the causes of events, which influences the
way they feel, their expectations, and their actions (Tomlinson & Mryer, 2009). Concerning the
work settings, it highlights that employees’ behavior relates to the specific events and their causes
(behavior of leader). This, in turn, served as a mechanism and helped the leader to shape employees’
attitude and their behavior. More specifically, a leader’s visibility, accessibility, and availability in
interaction with the followers changed their attributions of the behavior of the leader. This
transformed their attitude (psychological empowerment) and actions (voice behavior). In summary,
the objectives of the current study are twofold. First, the current study aims to extend and further
validate: the positive relationship between inclusive leadership and voice behavior, between inclusive
leadership and psychological empowerment, and between psychological empowerment and voice
176 A. YOUNAS ET AL.

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

behavior. The second and final objective is to respond to the research question that how inclusive
leadership enhances voice behavior, the current study aims to contribute to this research question by
incorporating the mediating role of psychological empowerment. The hypothesized model is avail­
able in Figure 1.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Inclusive leadership and voice behavior
According to Nembhard and Edmondson (2006), an inclusive leader supported individuals and
boosted their abilities to access and initiate things independently. Inclusive leader demanded and
appreciated input in the form of concerns and suggestions which emphasized employees’ partici­
pation in the decision-making process. By displaying such behavior, an inclusive leader helped
employees to realize their importance, which in turn enhanced their confidence to propose novel
solutions concerning workplace problems. In such environments, employees were more inclined
to come up with unique and progressive suggestions (i.e., voice behavior). Voice behavior reflected
individual’s intention to contribute to organizational effectiveness by proposing ideas, suggestions,
and concerns to solve complex problems regarding work and protecting the organization from
harmful incidents (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001; Liang et al., 2012; Morrison, 2011; Van Dyne &
LePine, 1998). Such contributions had an element of risk because a positive outcome was not
guaranteed. In case of failure, employees may fear that they would be called troublemakers so
many may prefer not to speak unless they were very sure about the outcomes. Research showed
that supervisors were often the cause for such behavior as they were ultimately responsible for
listening to their employees and for their performance evaluation (Morrison, 2011). In such
circumstances, the leader’s behavior while interacting with the followers played an active role in
removing barriers that may force employees to withhold their constructive voices (Walumbwa &
Schaubroeck, 2009).
Inclusive leaders were readily available to listen and open to discuss existing and new procedures
to achieve desired organizational goals (Carmeli et al., 2010). By displaying consistency in their
words and deeds inclusive leaders facilitated employees with a non-threatening environment to
express their voices which otherwise might be absent. Inclusive leaders promoted quality relations
and practiced fairness in providing resources to employees regardless of their capabilities
(Hollander, 2012). This helped employees to experience fairness in terms of their efforts and meet
the requirements of voice behavior. Moreover, by valuing the efforts and showing concern about
their welfare (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006), inclusive leaders encouraged employees to con­
tribute through their unique ideas, concerns, and suggestions. Meanwhile, some recent studies
acknowledged that inclusive leadership significantly predicted voice behavior (i.e., Guo et al.,
2020; J. Jiang et al., 2020; Jolly & Lee, 2020; L. Qi & Liu, 2017). Consequently, the following
hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Inclusive leadership is positively related to voice behavior.

 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 177

Inclusive leadership and psychological empowerment

The construct of psychological empowerment reflects four-dimensional psychological states guided by
the work environment to enhance employees’ orientation toward their work responsibilities
(Spreitzer, 1995). These four dimensions include: (1) the alignment of individual’s ideas, beliefs,
values, and behaviors regarding his/her role at work (meaning), (2) the confidence about one’s relative
skills, knowledge, and capabilities required to initiate and accomplish a specific role or task (compe­
tence), (3) the individual’s sovereignty to initiate and regulate his/her actions (self-determination), and
(4) the individual’s influence over operational and organizational outcomes (impact; Conger &
Kanungo, 1988; Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Overall, the multidimensional construct
of psychological empowerment depicts an individual’s proactive attitude (Eisenberger et al., 2014).
According to the theory of inclusive leadership, the effectiveness of leader’s behavior depends on
the condition that how much he/she empowers his/her followers and facilitates two-way communica­
tion. In such cases, a leader can enhance the use of the follower’s potential (Hollander, 2009). Inclusive
leaders who believe in and practice inclusion, allow employees to speak up, initiate, and enact novel
suggestions (Carmeli et al., 2010), thereby enhancing their confidence in undertaking a specific task.
Another unique characteristic of inclusive leaders is that they prefer to work with people rather than
working for people (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006) thus providing them with a chance to participate
and are readily available to assist employees to understand their role with respect to work. Inclusive
leaders encourage and welcome employees’ involvement in making decisions (Carmeli et al., 2010),
which leads employees to realize their control over situations and impact over results. Moreover,
leaders engaged in an inclusive process can afford exceptional discretion (McClane, 1991), and
delegate power to their employees (Nishii & Mayer, 2009). Thus, employees under inclusive leadership
enjoy autonomy to initiate things, which enhances their self-determination and leads them to voice
their ideas and concerns. When employees serve under the leader with inclusive characteristics they
believe in the leadership support which in turn helps them to feel psychologically empowered. Thus,
leader’s inclusive behavior changes employees’ attitude (their way of thinking about psychological
empowerment), which is supported by the causal attribution theory (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1986).
Through the key attributes of inclusive leadership openness, availability, and accessibility, it is quite
worthy to argue that inclusive leadership enhances the employees’ perception of psychological
empowerment. Recently, Javed, Abdullah et al. (2018) reported inclusive leadership predicting
employees’ psychological empowerment. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Inclusive leadership is positively related to psychological empowerment.

Psychological empowerment and voice behavior

Although employees’ upward communication with opinions, suggestions, and concerns is to improve
situations and organizational functioning, it is not without risk. Engagement in such behavior means the
actor is trying to modify the previous rules and processes (Detert & Burris, 2007). Thus, before voicing,
employees usually compare the possible benefits and costs associated with it. In such circumstances,
psychological empowerment can be a key element that guides employees to weigh the potential benefits
of voice in certain calculations (Frazier & Fainshmidt, 2012; Wang et al., 2016). O’driscoll et al. (2006)
argued that individuals show more inclination to speak up when they invest themselves in their job.
Through psychological empowerment, employees get a sense of control over the situations, and with the
help of this, they want to make a significant improvement in functioning by voicing their relevant opinions.
Psychologically empowered employees consider themselves capable of accomplishing their job and have
autonomy to initiate tasks of their own. This leads them to be proactive and communicate their concerns
with management (Frazier & Fainshmidt, 2012). Similarly, psychologically empowered employees have
a greater sense of intrinsic motivation through which they intend to find ways to improve their work by
178 A. YOUNAS ET AL.

highlighting the relevant issues (Spreitzer, 1995; Wang et al., 2016; Yogalakshmi & Suganthi, 2018). Thus,
with the feeling of psychological empowerment, employees are more determined to improve situations
through their voices. Wang et al. (2016) and Frazier and Fainshmidt (2012) have reported psychological
empowerment in positive relationship with voice behavior. Consequently, the following hypothesis is
proposed:

H3: Psychological empowerment is positively related to voice behavior.

Mediating role of psychological empowerment between inclusive leadership and voice

behavior
n light of the above-proposed relationships of psychological empowerment with both inclusive
leadership and voice behavior, current study further anticipates the intervening role of psychological
empowerment between inclusive leadership and voice behavior relationship. Several researchers have
highlighted psychological empowerment as an essential mechanism through which leaders can
influence their subordinates’ behavior especially in the context of constructive organizational change.
For instance, Javed, Abdullah et al. (2018) have confirmed that inclusive leadership transforms its
impact over innovative work behavior of employees via psychological empowerment, Wang et al.
(2016) also confirmed psychological empowerment as a mechanism which transforms the impact of
leader-member exchange on voice behavior of employees. However, to date, the inclusive leadership-
voice behavior relationship through psychological empowerment has not been reported by any
researcher.
This study has used causal attribution theory to explain the mediating role of psychological
empowerment because the leader’s inclusive behavior can change employees’ attributions toward
the leader, and this, in turn, changes their attitude (employees’ way of thinking about psycho­
logical empowerment) and actions (intentions to speak up voice behavior). According to Weiner
(1986), individuals persuade the basis of an outcome through the locus of causality such that the
cause was internal or external. Leaders’ inclusive behavior creates favorable employees’ attribu­
tions toward them by enhancing a supportive environment where a leader and a follower work
together for success. This influences their attitude and promotes the sense of psychological
empowerment in employees. Moreover, individuals consider the leader’s controllability over the
outcomes and when they believe that this will result in less detrimental actions toward them,
they will show more inclination toward the voice. Finally, the followers consider stability as
a predictor of future results. Inclusive leaders array care and concern for their followers; they
maintain trustful relations with employees and work with them to assist every step of routine
activities. This reduces the negative outcomes and enhances stability at work. Simply, inclusive
culture at work affects followers’ way of thinking and in turn motivates them to display voice
behavior.
Likewise, in support of the above argument, the meta-analysis by Seibert et al. (2011) highlighted
that different supportive and positive leadership behaviors are important antecedents of psychological
empowerment. Recent research suggests that in context of change, ethical leadership, authentic
leadership, transformational leadership, servant leadership, and empowering leadership stimulate
employees’ psychological empowerment to predict change-oriented behaviors (Amundsen &
Martinsen, 2015; Javed et al., 2016; Joo & Jo, 2017; Yang et al., 2019; Yoo, 2017; Zhang & Bartol,
2010). Accordingly, we hypothesized as follow:

H4: psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and voice
behavior.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 179

Method
Sample and procedure
Data were collected from the employees of 11 cargo companies (i.e., Cavalier Logistics, FTA Logistics,
JB Express, JJT Logistics, Manitoulin Transport, Road Rock Logistics, Simple Freight Solutions, Stones
Transport, Swift Dynamics, TFF logistics, and Ursus Transport) across United Kingdom for empirical
examination of inclusive leadership for its effect on employees’ voice behavior using the role of
psychological empowerment. The nature of the employees’ job in cargo companies is very sensitive
which accentuates the role of their voices with respect to the effectiveness of organizational function­
ing. Companies produce quality goods and their larger success is dependent on the working of cargo
employees because they ensure the transportation of goods on time without compromising the
hygiene factors. It is, therefore, crucial to realize the nature of employees’ job in Cargo companies
and here are a few examples. Cargo employees classify goods for several tariff and fee groups with the
use of coding in the tariff system. They also work to make connections with vendors to ensure the
maximum error-free shipments and voice communication by contacting service depots for repairing
a given system. Employees also identify the best method of shipment, work for bills of lading and other
relevant required shipping documents. In this job setting, voice behavior helps senior management to
get information from a lower level to respond effectively to challenges and solve problems quickly
before they become more severe. The role of supportive and involved leadership is very important in
such job settings in order to maximize the successful delivery of products to relevant customers.
Before starting the formal data collection through questionnaire distribution, the author visited the
human resource department of the concerned organizations to get permission. The author presented
the questionnaire along with the cover letter to clarify the purpose of the research and several other
ambiguities. For instance, it was clearly mentioned on the cover letter that the responses will be kept
highly confidential and will be used only for aggregate reporting. The cover letter further explained
that participation is voluntary; all the questions do not contain right or wrong options which highly
encourage your truthfulness, sincerity, and openness in responses. The author further explained that
such cover letter will be attached with every questionnaire and after the consent of the human resource
department of each organization the author visited different worksites to distribute questionnaires and
start the formal data collection.
Employees of different departments (i.e., marketing, operations, sales, information technology (IT),
human resource, finance and accounts, and administration) rated the questionnaires in two different
times with the gap of one month (Time 1 and Time 2) in their natural job setting. In time 1, the
employees rated inclusive leadership, and in time 2 the same employees rated their psychological
empowerment. Meanwhile, In time 2, supervisors rated their subordinates’ behavior with the ratio of
one to many which mean one supervisor rated his/her different subordinates. Table 1 represents that
one supervisor reported exactly how many number of employees were in his/her work team (the ratio
of each supervisor-subordinates dyad) along with the total number of work teams from which the data

Table 1. List of dyads in sampled organizations.

Dyads Dyads Dyads Dyads Dyads
7 8 2 4 5
4 9 7 2 4
8 9 2 7 3
5 7 3 2 5
2 9 2 5 4
4 3 2 7 4
5 2 3 2 2
3 7 3 5 2
2 3 7 4 3
6 2 8 3 3
5 4 9 3
4 2 2 3
180 A. YOUNAS ET AL.

were collected. The employees’ responses on both occasions were matched through their job identity
numbers. This technique also facilitated the supervisor to rate their relevant subordinates. The data
rated in two different times by both employees and their supervisors confirmed the absence of self-
reported and common method bias (Arnold & Feldman, 1981; Davis et al., 2010; Podsakoff et al.,
2003). In total 312 questionnaires were distributed of which 273 employees provided their responses.
The final sample was 252 including 58 supervisors after the removal of 21 missing responses yielding
80% response rate. The demographic characteristics of employees are shown in Table 2.

Measurements
This study used five-point Likert scale with the range of strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) to
obtain required responses.

Inclusive leadership
Carmeli et al. (2010) developed a 9-items scale of inclusive leadership and the same scale was used in
the current study. Sample items are “the manager is open to discuss the desired goals and new ways to
achieve them” (openness), “the manager is available for professional questions I would like to consult
with him/her” (availability), and “the manager is accessible for discussing emerging problems”
(accessibility). Several researchers (e.g., Choi et al., 2017; Hirak et al., 2012; Javed, Abdullah et al.,
2018; Javed, Khan et al., 2018; Javed et al., 2017) used the same scale in their studies and reported good
reliability. This study found 0.73 Cronbach’s alpha value for inclusive leadership scale.

Table 2. Demographic profile of respondents.

Characteristics Percentage
Number of employees
1–25 25.4
26–100 67.1
101–500 7.5
Department
Marketing 20.2
Operations 41.3
Sales 7.5
IT 6.3
HR 10.7
Finance 6.0
Administration 7.9
Gender
Female 31.7
Male 68.3
Age
< 25 9.1
25–30 25.8
31–34 32.1
35 and above 32.9
Experience
< 5 years 46.0
5–10 years 41.3
11–15 years 12.7
Hierarchy
Entry level 87.7
Middle level 12.3
Experience under supervisor
< 1 year 13.1
1–2 years 13.5
2–3 years 18.3
3–4 years 30.2
Above 4 years 25.0
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 181

Psychological empowerment
Spreitzer (1995) developed a 12-items scale of psychological empowerment and the same scale was
used in this study. Sample items are “the work I do is very important to me” (meaning), “I am
confident about my ability to do my job” (competence), “I have significant autonomy in determining
how I do my job” (self-determination) and “My impact on what happens in my department is large”
(impact). Previous studies also reported the excellent reliability of psychological empowerment (Javed
et al., 2016; Pradhan et al., 2017). The value of Cronbach’s alpha for psychological empowerment was
0.79 in current study.

Voice behavior
Voice behavior was measured by Van Dyne and LePine (1998)’s 6-item scale. Sample items are “this
particular employee develops and makes recommendations concerning issues that affect this work­
group,” “this particular employee communicates his/her opinions about work issues to others in this
group even if his/her opinion is different and others in the group disagree with him/her” and, “this
particular employee gets involved in issues that affect the quality of work-life here in this group.” This
voice behavior scale was also reported as reliable in other studies (Chen & Hou, 2016; Cheng et al.,
2014). Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was .70 in current research.

Covariates
The current study used number of employees in organization, department, gender, age, experience,
experience under current supervisor, and hierarchy as covariates in line with some existing research
(e.g., Hsiung, 2012; Z. Jiang et al., 2018; Park & Nawakitphaitoon, 2018), which reported the impact of
these factors on employees’ voice behavior. We perform one-way analysis of variance to check whether
these factors make any significant difference in voice behavior of employees. Results number of
employees in organization (F = 2.357, p = .097), department (F = 1.221, p = .296), gender (F = .114,
p = .735), age (F = .149, p = .930), experience (F = .570, p = .566), experience under current supervisor
(F = 3.575, p = .007), and hierarchy (F = 8.541, p = .004) revealed that only experience under current
supervisor and hierarchy have significant effect on voice behavior. Therefore, in the final analysis, we
controlled experience under current supervisor and hierarchy because of their significant influence on
voice behavior.

Results
Measurement model
Table 3 shows the correlation among the study variables. Moreover, to confirm measurement model,
we used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA; Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) which comprised of three
latent variables (inclusive leadership, psychological empowerment, and voice behavior). To assess
model fit, we used Model Chi-square, Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI),
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The values of

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, coefficient alpha reliabilities, and intercorrelations.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Hierarchy 1.12 .32 1
2 Experience under current supervisor 3.0 1.34 .33** 1
3 Inclusive leadership 3.83 .57 0.07 −0.03 (.73)
4 Psychological Empowerment 3.80 .42 .15* 0.05 .57** (.79)
5 Voice Behavior 4.05 .41 .18** −0.06 .62** .51** (.70)
Note: N = 252; Correlation is significant at *p < .05; **p < .01; α reliabilities are given in parentheses.
182 A. YOUNAS ET AL.

these thresholds: χ2/df = 350.14/311 = 1.125, IFI = 0.97; TLI = .96; CFI = .96; RMSEA = 0.02 indicate
that measurement model provides an excellent fit to the data. Table 4 shows the results of CFA which
also confirm the discriminant validity among the variables.

Tests of hypotheses
After having acceptable discriminant validity, we used the PROCESS Macro tool for SPSS version 3.1
to validate the proposed relationships H1, H2, H3, and H4. Hierarchy and experience under current
supervisor were used as control variables because of their significant influence on voice behavior.
Table 5 shows the values of regression coefficients along with their significant level. The value
(β = 0.35, p < .001) indicates that inclusive leadership is significantly related to voice behavior,
therefore, supports hypothesis 1 which stated that inclusive leadership is positively related to voice
behavior. Hypothesis 2 states that inclusive leadership is positively related to psychological empower­
ment, the value of regression coefficient (β = 0.42, p < .001) is also significant which supports this
hypothesis. Similarly, the value of regression coefficient (β = 0.21, p < .001) is also significant, which
supports hypothesis 3 that states that psychological empowerment is positively related to voice
behavior.
Finally, Table 6 shows the results regarding indirect effect of inclusive leadership on voice behavior
via mediating role of psychological empowerment. The value of coefficient (β = 0.09) with confidence
intervals (.0348, .1553), which do not contain zero in between their upper and lower limit is also
significant (Hayes, 2017). Therefore, supports hypothesis 4 which states that psychological empower­
ment mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and voice behavior.

Discussion
Seeking the determinants of organizational innovation and effectiveness, this research investigates the
role of relational leadership (inclusive leadership) style in facilitating employees in making construc­
tive suggestions. Inclusive leaders keep their actions in line with their words. They appreciate and
invite others to contribute (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). In relationship with their followers,
inclusive leaders practice openness, availability, and accessibility (Carmeli et al., 2010). Based on causal
attribution theory, we theorize inclusive leadership depicting followers’ voice behavior via influencing

Table 4. Measurement model.

Model Factors x2 df x2/ df RMSEA IFI TLI CFI
Baseline model Three factors 350.14 311 1.125 .02 .97 .96 .96
Notes: CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; TLI = Tucker–Lewis
index

Table 5. Path coefficients in the baseline model.

Structural path Path coefficients
Inclusive leadership → Voice Behavior .35***
Inclusive leadership → Psychological Empowerment .42***
Psychological Empowerment → Voice Behavior .21***
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < . 001

Table 6. Results on the mediating roles of psychological empowerment with inclusive leadership and voice behavior.
Bootstrapping Indirect Effect Boot SE BC (95% CI) Total Effect
Inclusive leadership → Psychological Empowerment → Voice Behavior .09 .0306 (.0348, .1553) .44***
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < . 001, SE standard error, BC means bias corrected, 5,000-bootstrap samples, CI confidence interval
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 183

their attitude (psychological empowerment parallel with Fazio (1990) who suggested that individuals
behavior is guided by their attitudes. By practicing characteristics of inclusion, leaders change
followers’ attitudes about their self-determination, meaning, their competencies, and impact overwork
(psychological empowerment). This allows followers to attribute positive outcomes to them and their
respective leaders, which results in showing more engagement in voice behavior to contribute to their
working unit and the organization. Our analysis verifies the proposed hypotheses by supporting
positive linkage between inclusive leadership and voice behavior, inclusive leadership and psycholo­
gical empowerment, psychological empowerment and voice behavior, and mediation of psychological
empowerment in between inclusive leadership-voice behavior relationship.

Theoretical implications
Findings support the inclusive leadership-voice behavior relationship which validates the argument
that leader’s support and actions are influential in developing employees’ willingness to express their
viewpoints intended to boost work conditions. This is particularly the case when leaders practice
inclusive principles and help employees to comprehend their importance by valuing their input
regardless of the outcome. Inclusive leaders assist employees in their routine tasks and promote
open communication by providing equal opportunities to every individual. Thus, in an inclusive
culture, employees feel more at ease to speak up. These findings are in line with the study of L. Qi and
Liu (2017), Guo et al. (2020), Jolly and Lee (2020), and J. Jiang et al. (2020) who found inclusive
leadership conducive to voice behavior, and also with studies of Javed, Khan et al. (2018) and Carmeli
et al. (2010) who witnessed inclusive leadership enhancing employees’ change-oriented behaviors.
Moreover, the results support the positive relationship between inclusive leadership and psycho­
logical empowerment. Inclusive leaders enhance psychological empowerment of their employees by
directly inviting them to participate and appreciating their input. This enables employees to feel
a greater sense of meaning and purpose in their job. Inclusive leaders are easily accessible at work
which allows employees to discuss at the time while having any ambiguity and as a result, they may
improve their competencies to perform their role at work. This increases employees’ self-
determination and heightens their intrinsic motivation (Randel et al., 2018). Under an inclusive
leader, employees get timely feedback on their activities, which enables them to know their impact
on the situations. Further, inclusive leaders delegate authority and let employees initiate and imple­
ment changes at work (Nishii & Mayer, 2009). This provides a sense of control to employees and they
can experience the impact of their efforts in different situations. Thus, the effectiveness of inclusive
culture is developed through empowering employees and providing them with the opportunity to
work with a leader as a joint working unit (Hollander, 2012; De Hoogh & Den Hartog, 2008).
Parallel with the study of Frazier and Fainshmidt (2012) and Wang et al. (2016), the results further
support the positive relationship between psychological empowerment and voice behavior. Given the
challenging, uncertain, and discretionary nature of voice behavior, employees often stake their
position as the success of the proposed advice is not guaranteed. Engagement in such behaviors
reflects their complete willingness (Van Dyne et al., 2003) and loyalty toward improving the current
situation (Hirschman, 1970). Thus, employees must be intrinsically motivated and have confidence in
their abilities to contribute (i.e. self-efficacy) which are both key dimensions of psychological empow­
erment. This shows that having the belief of psychological empowerment, employees successfully
overcome the fear of negative outcomes and feel more confident to challenge the standard rules and
procedures.
Finally, this study uncovers the underlying mechanism of psychological empowerment through
which inclusive leadership enhances employees’ voice behavior. Using causal attribution theory, this
study validates that inclusive culture furnishes work settings in such a way that influences employees’
attitude (their way of thinking (psychological empowerment) and this, in turn, changes their actual
behavior at work by overcoming the risk and uncertainties associated with voicing their concerns and
opinions. Psychologically empowered employees have confidence in their abilities and specific level of
184 A. YOUNAS ET AL.

self-determination. Employees believe that they can shape the outcomes, therefore, feel more comfor­
table in communicating their opinions (Spreitzer, 1995). While working with their leader in an
inclusive environment employees have the discretion to propose and decide suitable ways to accom­
plish tasks, which in turn nurtures their self-efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
Thus, inclusive leadership enhances psychological empowerment in employees and as a result, inspires
them to contribute via their constructive voices. These findings are extending the findings that
inclusive leadership enhances psychological empowerment (e.g., Javed, Abdullah et al., 2018; Randel
et al., 2018), and in same direction with other researchers who have reported psychological empower­
ment as a mechanism through which supportive leadership can enhance extra-role and change-
oriented behavior of employees (Newman et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2016). While existing research
employed cognitive evaluation, social exchange, and social learning perspective to explain inclusive
leadership and change-oriented outcomes relationship (e.g., Choi et al., 2017, 2015; Javed, Abdullah
et al., 2018; Javed, Khan et al., 2018; Yin, 2013), this study significantly contributes by introducing and
implementing causal attribution mechanism to explain inclusive leadership-voice behavior relation­
ship through psychological empowerment.

Practical implications
Employees are the valuable resource and without their proper and full utilization, an organization
cannot get the maximum output. Prior research has demonstrated several positive outcomes of
employees’ voice behavior in terms of performance and innovation (Bindl & Parker, 2010;
Chamberlin et al., 2018; Chen & Hou, 2016; Frazier & Bowler, 2015). It is, therefore, crucial for
organizations to endorse employees’ voice behavior to get the required output. The results of the
present study reveal inclusive leadership as an important contextual factor conducive to voice
behavior. Thus, by adopting openness, availability, and accessibility as key components of inclusive
leadership, managers can better lead their employees to display voice behavior. Further, to improve the
overall market capitalization, organizations may conduct training programs to induce inclusive
culture in their work settings. Similarly, managers can learn to display inclusive behavior by listening,
showing respect, and providing timely feedback to employees through open communication.
Since voice behavior is expected to improve work situations, it requires employees to be psycho­
logically empowered. The results recommend that managers should endorse employees with psycho­
logical empowerment such that their inclusive behavior may result in maximizing the positive
outcomes for the organization. Managers should clarify employees’ roles and provide them the
autonomy to initiate and accomplish tasks by using their insight. They should provide emotional
support to their employees to overcome the fear of making mistakes at their job. In sum, by adopting
inclusive characteristics, managers can shape employees’ attitudes and this, in turn, helps to yield
positive outcomes through improved voice behavior.

Strengths, limitations, and future directions

Considering the importance of employees’ voices with respect to current environmental challenges,
this is the first study to examine inclusive leadership-voice behavior relationship with the mediating
role of psychological empowerment. Along with the support for the proposed hypotheses, this study
owns theoretical and methodological strengths by avoiding common method and single-source biases.
Using the instructions of Podsakoff et al. (2003), we collected manager and employee rated data at two
different times. In time 1, employees reported about managers’ behavior (inclusive leadership) and
after the gap of one month, employees reported about their psychological empowerment (mediator)
and in the same time (Time 2) the respective supervisors of the employees rated voice behavior
(criterion variable) of their employees.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 185

Despite the number of novel contributions, this study is not without limitations like other field
studies. Although the study used previously developed and validated scales for all variables, we cannot
say for sure that which specific aspects of inclusive leadership (i.e., openness, accessibility, and
availability), psychological empowerment (meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact),
and voice behavior are responsible for the current results. Future researchers should consider detailed
investigations to reveal the influence of the different aspects of inclusive leadership and psychological
empowerment in shaping the behavior of employees at work. Further, the present study has utilized
psychological empowerment as an underlying mechanism through which inclusive leadership trans­
forms its influence on voice behavior. However, future studies may try some other mechanisms such as
creative self-efficacy, trust in management, and psychological ownership to explain inclusive leader­
ship-voice behavior relationship in a more comprehensive way.

Conclusion
This study was conducted to examine the relationship between inclusive leadership and voice behavior
through psychological empowerment to uncover the underlying mechanism between these two
constructs. The findings depicted that inclusive leadership was positively related to voice behavior
and this relationship was significantly mediated by psychological empowerment. Based on the tenet of
causal attribution theory, the findings further validated that leaders’ visibility, accessibility, and
availability in interaction with the followers transform their attitude which serves as a mechanism
to shape their ultimate behavior at work.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Notes on contributors
Dr. Amjad Younas attained his Ph.D. in Management Science and Engineering (HRM) from the University of Science
and Technology Beijing (USTB) in June 2020. He completed his Master's degree (MS) in Management from the
University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir in 2013. He served as lecturer/ HOD at Mohi-Ud-Din Islamic University,
Nerian Sharif AJ&K, Pakistan for more than one year. He is an approved HEC supervisor and currently serving as an
Assistant Professor at the Department of Management Sciences, Mohi-Ud-Din Islamic University, Nerian Sharif AJ&K,
Pakistan. His research interests include environmental corporate social responsibility (CSR), leadership and change-
oriented behaviors including creativity, innovative work behavior, voice behavior, taking charge, change-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), ethical leadership, and inclusive leadership. He has published his research
work in well-reputed journals and conferences like the Journal of Creative Behavior, Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, Chinese Management studies, and the Academy of Management Meeting 2020.
Daoping Wang is a Professor and Ph.D. tutor at the University of Science and Technology Beijing, Donlinks School of
Economics and Management, Beijing- P.R. China. He has obtained degrees of BS and MS from Tsinghua University in
1987 and 1989. Wang has received the Ph.D. degree from the University of Machinery Engineering in 1999 and post Ph.
D. from Tsinghua University in 2001. His teaching and research interests include Supply Chain Management, Logistics
Management, Information Management, Data Mining, and Data Warehouse, IT Project Management, and Electronic
Business. Apart from this, Wang has supervised numerous national and international research scholars.
Dr. Basharat Javed did his Ph.D. in Management Sciences from Capital University of Science and Technology (CUST)
in January 2018, Islamabad, Pakistan. In 2013, he completed his MS in Management Sciences in 2005 from Muhammad
Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad, Pakistan. He has also been teaching undergraduate and graduate-level courses as
visiting faculty member at CUST, University of Arid Agriculture Rawalpindi, University of Central Punjab, and Base
College Gujarkhan. His Ph.D. research work was on ‘impact of inclusive leadership on Innovative Work Behavior: the
186 A. YOUNAS ET AL.

role positive psychological states in small capitalization textile firms in Pakistan’. His research interests include
innovative work behavior, Islamic Work Ethics, Inclusive Leadership, and Abusive Supervision. He has published his
research work in well-reputed journals like Journal of Creative Behavior, Business Ethics: A European Review, Journal of
Psychology, Personnel Review, Journal of Management & Organization, Current Issues in Tourism, and Asia Pacific
Business Review. He has also published his research work in well-reputed Conferences like the Academy of Management
Meeting 2017, 2018, and 2019. He has been a faculty member at Namal University since July 2017.
Adnan ul Haque is a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) from the University of Wales TSD-London. His doctoral
research investigates the impact of varying occupational stressors on the organizational commitment of teaching and
non-teaching (administrative) staff working in public universities in Pakistan and the UK. He holds a Master's degree in
HRM from the University of Sunderland and MPA-HRM from the University of Karachi with distinctions. He is a
business lecturer and external examiner for London Graduate School and an online mentor and research supervisor at
Oxford Brookes University for BA (Hons) students working on final research projects. He also gives guest lectures at
different institutions and presents keynote speeches at international conferences. He is an HR consultant to logistics
firms in Canada.

ORCID
Amjad Younas http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3677-3465

Data availability statement

The data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/
yvbp24djbp.1.

Open Scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open Science badges for Open Data and Open Materials through Open Practices
Disclosure. The data and materials are openly accessible at http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/yvbp24djbp.1.

References
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2015). Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction, work effort, and creativity
the role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(3),
304–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051814565819
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1981). Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations. Academy of
Management Journal, 24(2), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.5465/255848
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Christianson, M. K. (2009). Voice and Silence in Organizations, 175–202.
Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in
organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, American
Psychological Association. 567–598.
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(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10400419.2010.504654
Chamberlin, M., Newton, D. W., & LePine, J. A. (2018). A meta-analysis of empowerment and voice as transmitters of
high-performance managerial practices to job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(10), 1296–1313.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2295
Chen, A. S.-Y., & Hou, Y.-H. (2016). The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for innovation on
creativity: A moderated mediation examination. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2015.10.007
Chen, S.-J., Wang, M.-J., & Lee, S.-H. (2018). Transformational leadership and voice behaviors: The mediating effect of
employee perceived meaningful work. Personnel Review, 47(3), 694–708. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2017-0016
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 187

Cheng, J.-W., Chang, S.-C., Kuo, J.-H., & Cheung, Y.-H. (2014). Ethical leadership, work engagement, and voice
behavior. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(5), 817–831. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2013-0429
Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H., & Kang, S.-W. (2017). Inclusive leadership and employee well-being: The mediating role of
person-job fit. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(6), 1877–1901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9801-6
Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H., & Park, B. I. (2015). Inclusive leadership and work engagement: Mediating roles of affective
organizational commitment and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43(6), 931–943.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.6.931
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 13(3), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.2307/258093
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed influence in the
innovation process: How shared leadership can enhance new product development team dynamics and effectiveness.
In Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, SAGE Publications Inc. 48–76.
Davis, C. G., Thake, J., & Vilhena, N. (2010). Social desirability biases in self-reported alcohol consumption and harms.
Addictive Behaviors, 35(4), 302–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.11.001
Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development. Human
Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.007
De Hoogh, A. H., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and despotic leadership, relationships with leader’s social
responsibility, top management team effectiveness and subordinates’ optimism: A multi-method study. The
Leadership Quarterly, 19(3), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of
Management Journal, 50(4), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
Drath, W. H. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Eisenberger, R., Shoss, M. K., Karagonlar, G., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Wickham, R. E., & Buffardi, L. C. (2014). The
supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational
embodiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5), 635–656. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1877
Elsetouhi, A. M., Hammad, A. A., Nagm, A.-E. A., & Elbaz, A. M. (2018). Perceived leader behavioral integrity and
employee voice in SMEs travel agents: The mediating role of empowering leader behaviors. Tourism Management, 65,
100–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.022
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative
framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60318-4
Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change.
The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.004
Fletcher, J. K. (2007). Leadership, power, and positive relationships, In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring
positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers. 347–371 .
Frazier, M. L., & Bowler, W. M. (2015). Voice climate, supervisor undermining, and work outcomes: A group-level
examination. Journal of Management, 41(3), 841–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311434533
Frazier, M. L., & Fainshmidt, S. (2012). Voice climate, work outcomes, and the mediating role of psychological
empowerment: A multilevel examination. Group & Organization Management, 37(6), 691–715. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1059601112463960
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of
Management Review, 17(2), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4279530
Guo, Y., Zhu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2020). Inclusive leadership, leader identification and employee voice behavior: The
moderating role of power distance. Current Psychology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00647-x
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based
approach. Guilford Publications. Record #332 is using a reference type undefined in this output style.]
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations: Wiley, New York.
Hirak, R., Peng, A. C., Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2012). Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance:
The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 107–117. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.009
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. 25. Harvard
university press.
Hollander, E. (2009). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. Routledge.
Hollander, E. (2012). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. Routledge.
Hsiung, -H.-H. (2012). Authentic leadership and employee voice behavior: A multi-level psychological process. Journal
of Business Ethics, 107(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1043-2
Islam, T., Ahmed, I., & Ali, G. (2019). Effects of ethical leadership on bullying and voice behavior among nurses:
Mediating role of organizational identification, poor working condition and workload. Leadership in Health Services,
32(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-02-2017-0006
188 A. YOUNAS ET AL.

Jada, U. R., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2018). Empowering leadership and constructive voice behavior: A moderated
mediated model. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 26(2), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-
03-2017-1146
Javed, B., Abdullah, I., Zaffar, M. A., Ul Haque, A., & Rubab, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership and innovative work
behavior: The role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(4), 554–571. https://
doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.50
Javed, B., Khan, A. A., Bashir, S., & Arjoon, S. (2016). Impact of ethical leadership on creativity: The role of psychological
empowerment. Current Issues in Tourism, 20(8), 839–851. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2016.1188894
Javed, B., Khan, A. K., & Quratulain, S. (2018). Inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior: Examination of LMX
perspective in small capitalized textile firms. The Journal of Psychology, 152(8), 594–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223980.2018.1489767
Javed, B., Naqvi, S. M. M. R., Khan, A. K., Arjoon, S., & Tayyeb, H. H. (2017). Impact of inclusive leadership on
innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety–CORRIGENDUM. Journal of Management &
Organization, 23(3), 472–473. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.17
Jiang, J., Ding, W., Wang, R., & Li, S. (2020). Inclusive leadership and employees’ voice behavior: A moderated
mediation model. Current Psychology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01139-8
Jiang, Z., Le, H., & Gollan, P. J. (2018). Cultural intelligence and voice behavior among migrant workers: The mediating
role of leader–member exchange. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(5), 1082–1112.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1322119
Jolly, P. M., & Lee, L. (2020). Silence is not golden: Motivating employee voice through inclusive leadership. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 45(6), 1092–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020963699
Joo, B.-K., & Jo, S. J. (2017). The effects of perceived authentic leadership and core self-evaluations on organizational
citizenship behavior: The role of psychological empowerment as a partial mediator. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 38(3), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2015-0254
Kahane, A. (2004). Solving tough problems: An open way of talking, listening, and creating new realities, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Lapierre, L. M., Hackett, R. D., & Taggar, S. (2006). A test of the links between family interference with work, job
enrichment and leader–member exchange. Applied Psychology, 55(4), 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.
2006.00234.x
Lapointe, É., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Examination of the relationships between servant leadership, organizational
commitment, and voice and antisocial behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-015-3002-9
Lee, S. E., & Dahinten, V. S. (2021). Psychological safety as a mediator of the relationship between inclusive leadership
and nurse voice behaviors and error reporting. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 53(6), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jnu.12689
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance:
Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86(2), 326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.326
Liang, J., Farh, C. I., & Farh, J.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave
examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0176
Liang, S.-G. (2017). Linking leader authentic personality to employee voice behaviour: A multilevel mediation model of
authentic leadership development. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(3), 434–443. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1293656
Martin, R., Thomas, G., Charles, K., Epitropaki, O., & McNamara, R. (2005). The role of leader-member exchanges in
mediating the relationship between locus of control and work reactions. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78(1), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904X23763
Maslyn, J. M., Schyns, B., & Farmer, S. M. (2017). Attachment style and leader-member exchange: The role of effort to
build high quality relationships. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 38(3), 450–462. https://doi.org/10.
1108/LODJ-01-2016-0023
McClane, W. E. (1991). Implications of member role differentiation: Analysis of a key concept in the LMX model of
leadership. Group & Organization Studies, 16(1), 102–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960119101600107
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of
Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2011.574506
Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 1(1), 173–197. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status
on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7),
941–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413
Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017). How servant leadership influences organizational citizen­
ship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 49–62.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 189

Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating
role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017190
O’driscoll, M. P., Pierce, J. L., & Coghlan, A.-M. (2006). The psychology of ownership: Work environment structure,
organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 388–416. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273066
Park, J.-Y., & Nawakitphaitoon, K. (2018). The cross-cultural study of LMX and individual employee voice: The
moderating role of conflict avoidance. Human Resource Management Journal, 28(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1748-8583.12158
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W., & Angle, H. L. (2003). Organizational Influence Processes, Glenview, IL: Scot, Foresman.
431–445.
Pradhan, R. K., Panda, M., & Jena, L. K. (2017). Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment: The
mediating effect of organizational culture in Indian retail industry. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30
(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-01-2016-0026
Qi, L., & Liu, B. (2017). Effects of inclusive leadership on employee voice behavior and team performance: The mediating
role of caring ethical climate. Frontiers in Communication, 2, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2017.00008
Qi, Y., & Ming-Xia, L. (2014). Ethical leadership, organizational identification and employee voice: Examining moder­
ated mediation process in the Chinese insurance industry. Asia Pacific Business Review, 20(2), 231–248. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13602381.2013.823712
Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive
leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource
Management Review, 28(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002
Raub, S., & Robert, C. (2013). Empowerment, organizational commitment, and voice behavior in the hospitality
industry: Evidence from a multinational sample. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1938965512457240
Schermuly, C. C., Meyer, B., & Dämmer, L. (2013). Leader-member exchange and innovative behavior. Journal of
Personnel Psychology, 12(3), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000093
Seibert, S. E., Wang, G., & Courtright, S. H. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team
empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0022676
Spreitzer, G. M., De Janasz, S. C., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Empowered to lead: The role of psychological empowerment in
leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(4), 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)
20:4<511::AID-JOB900>3.0.CO;2-L
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic
task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310926
Tomlinson, E. C., & Mryer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of
Management Review, 34(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.35713291
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007
Vadera, A. K., Pratt, M. G., & Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive deviance in organizations: Integrating and moving
forward. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1221–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313475816
Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional
constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive
validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.5465/256902
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of
ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1275. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0015848
Wang, D., Gan, C., & Wu, C. (2016). LMX and employee voice: A moderated mediation model of psychological
empowerment and role clarity. Personnel Review, 45(3), 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2014-0255
Weiner, B. (1986). Attribution, emotion, and action. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation
and Cognition: Foundations of SocialBehavior, 1 (pp. 281–312). Guilford Press.
Yang, J., Gu, J., & Liu, H. (2019). Servant leadership and employee creativity: The roles of psychological empowerment
and work–family conflict. Current Psychology, 38(6), 1417–1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-0161-3
Yin, L. W. (2013). Inclusive Leadership and Employee Voice: Mediating Roles of Psychological Safety and Leader-
member Exchange. (Unpublished undergraduate thesis). Hong Kong Baptist University.
190 A. YOUNAS ET AL.

Yogalakshmi, J., & Suganthi, L. (2018). Impact of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on
affective commitment: Mediation role of individual career self-management. Current Psychology, 39(3), 885–899.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9799-5
Yoo, J. (2017). Customer power and frontline employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of psychological empowerment.
European Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2015-0477
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psycho­
logical empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53
(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037118