Discussion 1: Person-Environment Fit

RESEARCH PAPER

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Person-Job Fit

Suk Bong Choi1 • Thi Bich Hanh Tran2 • Seung-Wan Kang3

Published online: 1 October 2016 � Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract This study explored the effects of inclusive leadership on employee well-being and innovative behavior. We also investigated the mediating role of person-job fit in these

relationships. We tested these effects on a sample of 207 employees in five telecommu-

nication companies in Vietnam, using a questionnaire survey. The results showed that

inclusive leadership is positively related to employee well-being and innovative behavior,

and that person-job fit mediates these relationships. The study makes theoretical contri-

butions to the literature of leadership and organizational psychology, and suggests useful

managerial implications for organizations to boost employee well-being and innovative

behavior. Taking a cultural approach, this study provides empirical cross-cultural validity

of the effect of inclusive leadership on employee well-being.

Keywords Employee well-being � Inclusive leadership � Person-job fit � Innovative behavior

& Suk Bong Choi [email protected]

Thi Bich Hanh Tran [email protected]

Seung-Wan Kang [email protected]

1 College of Business and Economics, Korea University, 2511 Sejong-ro, Sejong City 339-700, Republic of Korea

2 School of Business Administration, University of Ulsan, 93 Daehak-ro, Nam-gu, Ulsan 680-749, Republic of Korea

3 College of Business, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnamdaero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam City, Gyeonggi-do 461-701, Republic of Korea

123

J Happiness Stud (2017) 18:1877–1901 DOI 10.1007/s10902-016-9801-6

1 Introduction

Recently, employee well-being and innovative behavior have been increasingly empha-

sized as the foundation of organizational performance (Huhtala and Parzefall 2007). As a

result, studying the drivers of employee well-being and innovative behavior is vital (Scott

and Bruce 1994). Amongst several possible influential factors, leadership has been iden-

tified as an influential driver of employee well-being and innovative behavior (Arnold et al.

2007; Densten 2005; Gong et al. 2009; Sivanathan et al. 2004). Studies in this regard have

concluded that a leader exerts significant influence on employee well-being and innovative

behavior through work demands, control, and social support (Gilbreath and Benson 2004;

Harris and Kacmar 2006). However, few studies have explored the relationships among

specific leadership styles, employee well-being, and employee innovative behavior in a

single context. Sharifirad (2013) was a welcome exception, arguing that transformational

leadership catalyzes employee well-being and innovative behavior thanks to its highly

motivational effects on followers (Bass 1985). Meanwhile, Fletcher (2004) and Uhl-Bien

(2006) called for further research on an understudied type of leadership, namely relational

leadership, because changing economic conditions require leaders to be more attentive to

relationship building, in order to create a more motivated workforce (Uhl-Bien 2006;

Carmeli et al. 2010). In line with this call, some researchers have garnered their interest in

one specific core facet of relational leadership, inclusive leadership, which differs from

other leadership styles by its explicit focus on the leader’s openness, availability, and

accessibility to meet employees’ needs (Hollander 2009). However, research on the effects

of inclusive leadership on employee well-being and innovative behavior has been scarce.

In this study, we argue that inclusive leadership affects employee well-being and inno-

vative behavior thanks to large motivational influences of this leadership style (Hollander

2009; Carmeli et al. 2010).

In addition, though the literature has documented the linkage between person-job fit and

leadership (Mulki et al. 2006; Babakus et al. 2011), employee well-being (Brkich et al.

2002; Singh and Greenhaus 2004), and employee innovative behavior Afsar et al.

(2014a, b), little has been directed toward the mediating effect of person-job fit in the

relationship between inclusive leadership and employee well-being as well as innovative

behavior. Meanwhile, previous studies suggested that there are numerous mechanisms by

which leader behavior can influence employee satisfaction as well as involvement in

creative tasks and called for further research on different mediating variables to understand

the ways in which leadership affects employee well-being and innovative behavior (Car-

meli et al. 2010; Sharifirad 2013).

To bridge these theoretical gaps, this study examines the effect of inclusive leadership

on employee well-being and innovative behavior, and the mediating role of person-job fit

in these relationships from the perspective of the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory

(Graen 1976).

The LMX theory provides an important theoretical lens on leaders’ behavior, which

contributes to their followers’ desired outcome (Volmer et al. 2012; Herman et al. 2013).

The theory highlights that ‘‘most effective leadership processes occur when leaders and

followers are able to develop mature relationships (partnerships) and thus gain access to

the many benefits these relationships bring’’ (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1991, p. 225). Thus, this

theory helps us to explain how inclusive leadership is associated with facilitating trust,

respect, mutual obligation, and partnership between leaders and followers, which ulti-

mately contribute to enhancing the latter’s well-being (Volmer et al. 2012; Herman et al.

1878 S. B. Choi et al.

123

2013). The LMX theory also helps us to explain how inclusive leadership helps to build

strong relationships between leaders and followers based on mutual learning, and how

leaders’ accommodations of different needs and followers’ preferences promote better

condition for employees’ innovative behavior (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1991; Herman et al.

2013; Volmer et al. 2012).

For example, Volmer et al. (2012) emphasized that LMX identified leadership by

focusing on interpersonal relationships between leaders and followers, as evidenced in

inclusive leadership. They tested the interplay between LMX and creative work involve-

ment by using longitudinal field survey data from a high-technology firm, and identified

that a high quality of LMX led leaders to provide employees with a high degree of job

autonomy in determining methods and means for completing creative work. Other

researchers (Vinarski-Peretz et al. 2010; Ilies et al. 2007) have also argued that LMX

positively influences creative work performance by enhancing inclusive leaders’ behavior

toward employees, such as task-related recognition, interpersonal support, and apprecia-

tion. In addition, LMX has the effect of challenging employees to perform difficult tasks

and engage in greater risk-taking via inclusive leadership.

We also grounded the mediating role of person-job fit from this theory. Inclusive leaders

have an ability to cultivate high-quality relationship with their followers (Carmeli et al.

2010; Volmer et al. 2012; Tse et al. 2013), which provides followers with increased

resources to meet their job demands better. Thus, followers are likely to experience a

higher person-job fit with inclusive leaders, which can be conducive to their positive job-

related experience and outcomes such as employee well-being and innovative behavior.

For example, Babakus et al. (2011) suggested that the person-job fit facilitated by a

leader’s inclusive behavior positively influences subordinate work-related outcomes. These

benefits include innovative behavior, since the proper match between job demands and

employee knowledge, skill, and ability reinforces employee motivation and learning,

which provides critical organizational resources for employee innovative behavior. It also

has the effect of reducing stress and turnover intention in the working process.

Hecht and Allen (2005) and Lin et al. (2014) also found that person-job fit, which is

enhanced by a leader’s relational behavior, has a positive impact on employee well-being,

as employees could perform their jobs without being a hazard to themselves or others. In

other words, person-job fit reduces emotional exhaustion levels, but increases self-efficacy

and psychological satisfaction due to positive feelings incurred from the congruence

between employee needs, desires, preferences, and rewards of the job, which ultimately

enhance employee well-being.

This study makes three main contributions to the literature. First, it extends the literature

of leadership by analyzing an underexplored type of leadership in relation to employee

well-being and innovative behavior. Most research on the influence of leaders on employee

innovative behavior and well-being has concentrated on overall leader support with general

factors such as leader appreciation and support for employee ideas and leader support

through resources (Hunter et al. 2007; Mumford and Hunter 2005; George and Zhou 2007).

They did not distinguish between the different aspects of support (Carmeli et al. 2010);

however, our study, by focusing on inclusive leadership, is attentive to specific aspects of

leader support. Second, the study also extends our knowledge of the underlying mecha-

nisms for employee well-being and innovative behavior. Research evaluating the mecha-

nism by which relational leadership, inclusive leadership in particular, is relevant to

employee involvement in innovative activities together with employee well-being is still

rare (Carmeli et al. 2010, Sharifirad 2013). Hence, our study provides a valuable addition

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1879

123

to this line of inquiry in the literature. Drawing on the LMX theory, we also extend the

applicability of the LMX theory to inclusive leadership studies.

Lastly, the findings of our study offer a cultural significance. Bahl et al. (2009) iden-

tified that most leadership studies have been conducted in Western societies, and stressed

the need to add the empirical cross-cultural validity of leadership-work outcome rela-

tionships to the current literature. Concerning inclusive leadership, Carmeli et al. (2010)

have confirmed the effect on employee involvement in creative tasks in a European

context. Our study’s focus on Vietnam, an Asian context with vastly different cultural

characteristics from Western contexts (Wang and Yi 2011), provides empirical cross-

cultural validity of the influence of inclusive leadership.

2 Hypotheses Development

2.1 Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being

Inclusive leadership, coined by Nembhard and Edmondson (2006), refers to the ‘‘leaders

who exhibit openness, accessibility, and availability in their interactions with followers’’

(Carmeli et al. 2010, p. 250). As this definition indicates, a leader’s openness, accessibility,

and availability to talk and discuss ideas of employees are the three reinforcing facets of

inclusive leadership (Carmeli et al. 2010). These three aspects of inclusive leadership not

only reflect the leader’s care and concern for the follower, but also allow inclusive leaders

to communicate their desirable expectations with followers effectively. In other words,

inclusive leaders are open, willing to listen to employees and discuss new ways for

achieving the work goals, and paying attention to new opportunities. These characteristics

also enable them to cultivate high-quality relationships with employees (Carmeli et al.

2010). With these behaviors, they cultivate a social context that is safe for employees to

voice, speak up, or contribute their inputs. Therefore, inclusive leadership contributes to

employee well-being.

Inclusive leadership has been regarded as a mode of relational leadership featuring

leaders’ explicit attention to followers’ needs and availability to them (Hollander 2009).

Likewise, Carmeli et al. (2010) clarified that inclusive leadership is a form of relational

leadership, emphasizing that leaders are available, willing to listen, and paying attention to

followers’ needs, whether the leader listens, and is paying attention to the follower’s needs.

As such, inclusive leadership is treated as a leadership style akin to several other leadership

styles such as ethical leadership and transformational leadership. This is because inclusive

leadership attends to three specific supportive behaviors of a leader, including openness,

accessibility, and availability, similar to other leadership styles, such as servant leadership,

which is characterized by a leader’s specific behavior (Van Dierendonck 2010). In addi-

tion, based on Uhl-Bien (2006) elaboration on relational leadership, inclusive leadership,

as a form of relational leadership (Carmeli et al. 2010), emphasizes on socially influenced

processes to create changes. Thus, it is treated as a style of leadership, although it induces

positive relational qualities between leaders and followers.

Hollander (2009) asserted that inclusive leaders are always supportive of followers.

They encourage open communication to invite inputs from followers, have concern for the

interests, expectations, and feelings of followers, and are available and willing to provide

assistance to followers. Inclusive leadership is beneficial to employees in several ways.

1880 S. B. Choi et al.

123

According to Nembhard and Edmondson (2006), inclusive leadership helps to shape team

members’ beliefs that their voices are genuinely valued.

Employee well-being refers to a pleasure or positive emotional state resulting from the

appraisal of one’s job or job experience (Locke 1976). Previous research has regarded

affect, anxiety, and frustration as exemplary psychological indicators of well-being, while

blood pressure and heart condition are considered the physiological indicators (Danna and

Griffin 1999). Researchers have taken two approaches to understanding employee well-

being: positive and negative. While the negative approach has been dedicated to studying

burnout and occupational stress, the positive approach has construed well-being as an

affective state that consists of two dimensions: pleasure and level of arousal (Cartwright

and Holmes 2006; Diener et al. 1999; Linley and Joseph 2004; Maslach et al. 2001;

Schaufeli and Bakker 2004; Warr 1994). Therefore, affective well-being has been referred

as general well-being (Diener et al. 1999). Several studies used affective well-being to

measure general well-being (van Horn et al. 2004). Following this research line, the current

study takes the positive well-being approach and focuses on affective well-being as the

general well-being.

Previous research has discovered that employee well-being is influenced by both the

physical and the psychological work environment (Gilbreath and Benson 2004). Leader-

ship style is one of the main psychological work environment factors influencing employee

well-being (Sparks et al. 2001). Under the LMX theory, leader support serves as a job

resource that influences employee well-being based on quality relationship between the

leader and followers. Accordingly, we argue that inclusive leadership is conducive to

employee well-being for three reasons. First, by attending to employees’ needs, an

inclusive leader cultivates trust among employees and strengthens the relationships

between them, and thus improves employee well-being (Ramamoorthy et al. 2005). The

underlying logic is that trust in the leader limits the perceived level of risk, vulnerability,

and stress, which have detrimental effects on employee well-being (Schabracq et al. 1996).

In support of this, Van Dierendonck et al. (2004) indicated that high-quality leadership

behavior is conducive to employee well-being. Second, an inclusive leader’s openness,

availability, and accessibility lead to employees’ satisfaction in their jobs (Butler et al.

1999), which is an indicator of well-being (Huhtala and Parzefall 2007). This is because

the inclusive leader’s supportive behavior helps employees to fulfill their work goals, and

thus stimulates intrinsic satisfaction with work (Huhtala and Parzefall 2007). Third, the

leader’s openness and accessibility may enhance role clarity, which contributes to lessen

perceived work stress, and thus enhance employee well-being (Turner et al. 2002). The

reason is that the leader’s open behavior provides employees with necessary information

and knowledge to analyze the information for themselves (Sofarelli and Brown 1998).

Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H1 Inclusive leadership is positively related to employee well-being.

2.2 Inclusive Leadership and Innovative Behavior

Farr and Ford (1990) defined employee innovative behavior as ‘‘the intentional introduc-

tion within one’s work role of new and useful ideas, processes, products, or procedures’’ (p.

63). Kanter (1988) and Scott and Bruce (1994) stressed that innovative behavior is a multi-

stage process. This involves problem recognition, generation of ideas, building support for

ideas, and implementation of ideas. While Amabile (1988) viewed innovative behavior as a

motivational issue, Anderson et al. (2004) acknowledged that many factors are facilitators

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1881

123

of innovative behavior. These factors may come from individuals, work groups, and

organizations. The influences of specific leadership styles on employee innovative

behavior have been widely addressed. For instance, employee innovative behavior has

been linked to transformational leadership (Afsar et al. 2014a, b; Sharifirad 2013; Janssen

2000; Nusair et al. 2012; Reuvers et al. 2008), leader-member exchange (Agarwal et al.

2012; Sanders et al. 2010; Volmer et al. 2012), and ethical leadership (Yidong and Xinxin

2013). These studies shared one commonality: in order for employee innovative behavior

to occur, the leader needs to foster, encourage, and support creativity (Shalley and Gilson

2004).

An inclusive leader’s openness, accessibility, and availability enhance employee sat-

isfaction in interactions with the leader and extend employee knowledge and expertise

(Carmeli et al. 2010; Choi et al. 2015), therefore motivating employees to involve in

innovative work. We argue that inclusive leadership is positively associated to employee

innovative behavior in three ways. First, supportive behavior of inclusive leaders provides

employees with emotional and cognitive resources, which motivate them to be engaged in

creative work (Amabile 1997; Vinarski-Peretz and Carmeli 2011). In a similar vein,

Tierney et al. (1999) disclosed that a leader’s open interactions with followers, encour-

agement, and support help to enhance employees’ creativity, which is an initial component

of employee innovative behavior (West 2002). Second, the leader’s openness to employ-

ees’ ideas and suggestions contributes to establish a perception of support for creativity and

innovation among employees, which in turn forms a supportive climate for employees to

experiment and suggest novel ideas (Cerne et al. 2013). The perception of a supportive

climate makes them feel free to share information and express true thoughts about work

(Kernis 2003). They feel secure to propose unconventional ideas and introduce conflicting

opinions without fear of the consequences (Avolio et al. 2004). A supportive climate that is

developed over time by a leader’s support facilitates and fosters innovative behavior (Åmo

2006; Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). Finally, leader availability and accessibility con-

tribute to providing timely counseling and advice to employees, which increase employee

role clarity in their work processes and therefore facilitate employee generalization and

implementation of novel and useful ideas (Carmeli et al. 2010). Thus, we hypothesize the

following:

H2 Inclusive leadership is positively related to employee innovative behavior.

2.3 Inclusive Leadership and Person-Job Fit

Person-job fit has been defined as the perceived degree of match between an individual’s

knowledge, skills, abilities, needs, values, and the requirements of specific jobs or job tasks

(Shin 2004). Kristof-Brown et al. (2002) reckoned that good person-job fit occurs when a

person has sufficient abilities to perform a job. Edwards (1991) divided person-job fit into

two basic types. One is the demands-abilities fit in which employees’ knowledge, skills,

and abilities are compatible with what their jobs require. The other form is labeled the

needs-supplies or supplies-values fit in which employees’ needs, desires, and preferences

are met by the jobs they perform (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005). Some studies have examined

the different influences of each sub-type of person-job fit on their study outcomes (Ying

2011). Others treated person-job fit as a single construct featuring the characteristics of

both sub-types (Mulki et al. 2006). Our study adapts the latter approach.

1882 S. B. Choi et al.

123

We argue that inclusive leadership is related to person-job fit in three possible ways.

First, an inclusive leader’s openness to discuss problems with employees (Choi et al. 2015)

may reduce employees’ uncertainty and ambiguity in work roles (Thomas and Lankau

2009, Turner et al. 2002), thereby enhancing their capabilities to fulfill their jobs’ demands.

Second, inclusive leadership creates a supportive working environment (Hollander 2009)

which promotes employee optimism and belief that they have fitting abilities to meet the

requirements of their jobs and tasks (Tims et al. 2011). This is because in a supportive

work climate, employees feel motivated, while experiencing less aversive arousal resulting

from failures or hardship in their jobs (Gong et al. 2009). Babakus et al. (2011) disclosed

that motivation stemmed from a supportive climate enhances employees’ perception of

person-job fit. Lastly, by showing constant support to employees (Hollander 2009), an

inclusive leader is likely to provide employees with mastery experiences (Bandura 1977).

Importantly, mastery experiences boost employees’ confidence in their abilities because

they may enjoy numerous opportunities to receive positive feedback about their efforts and

performance (Tims et al. 2011). Following this logic, we propose the following hypothesis:

H3 Inclusive leadership is positively related to person-job fit.

2.4 Person-Job Fit and Employee Well-Being

Person-job fit can be linked to employee well-being because of three reasons. First, pos-

itive perception of person-job fit makes employees more satisfied in work. Quinn (2005)

indicated that the perception of having capabilities in fulfilling tasks helps employees

derive more joy from their work. Brkich et al. (2002) and Singh and Greenhaus (2004)

specified that a proper match between employee skills and abilities and the set of job

requirements makes employees happy with their jobs. Second, when employees perceive a

close fit between their abilities and job demands, they experience less stress and exhaustion

(Singh and Greenhaus 2004) and worry less (Quinn 2005). In other words, the perception

of person-job fit may weaken the effect of exhaustion at work (Halbesleben and Buckley

2004; Janssen 2004; Wright and Hobfoll 2004), thus improving employee well-being.

Lastly, Akkermans et al. (2013) suggested that employees’ positive self-evaluations of

their abilities serve as personal resources. These personal resources are relevant to well-

being because they stimulate personal growth development and goal achievement

(Akkermans et al. 2013; Xanthopoulou et al. 2009). We argue that person-job fit helps

them to perform their jobs well (Brkich et al. 2002) because employees who have fitting

abilities with the job demands may perform their job effectively (Hamid and Yahya 2011),

which in turn can enhance their well-being. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H4 Person-job fit is positively related to employee well-being.

2.5 Person-Job Fit and Innovative Behavior

We argue for the positive influence of person-job fit on employee innovative behavior in

the following ways. First, employees feel optimistic and self-confident and develop a sense

of accomplishment when they perceive that they can meet their job demands (Xie and

Johns 1995). The confidence in their abilities motivates them to try new things more often

and not be afraid of possible failures (Cerne et al. 2013). We argue that the positive

perception of person-job fit influences their expectations of the consequences of the new

trials and experiments. Positive expectations in turn encourage them to try new things,

ideas, and processes (Cerne et al. 2013). Second, Avolio et al. (2004) added that

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1883

123

employees’ positive assessment of their abilities to deal with the job’s or task’s require-

ments enable flexible and creative thinking which is a crucial element of innovative

behavior. The confidence in abilities allows employees to think more flexibly and cre-

atively because they experience less constraints derived from a lack of abilities (Avolio

et al. 2004). Thus, we hypothesize the following:

H5 Person-job fit is positively related to employee innovative behavior.

2.6 Person-Job Fit as a Mediator Between Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being and Innovative Behavior

Previous research has shown a strong linkage between leadership and employee well-being

and innovative behavior. However, the underlying theoretical mechanism is less clear

(Carmeli et al. 2010; Sharifirad 2013). Based on the LMX theory, our study evaluated

person-job fit as a mediator of the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee

well-being and innovative behavior. Specifically, leaders’ concern for others’ needs and

preferences, a characteristic of inclusive leadership (Carmeli et al. 2010), is appreciated by

employees because employees realize that this concern of the leader is one of the main

sources for creating supportive feedback and opportunities for participation (Van Vianen

2000). As such, inclusive leaders are likely to cultivate high-quality relationships with their

subordinates (Carmeli et al. 2010). According to the LMX theory (Graen 1976), in a high-

quality relationship in which a leader’s and subordinates’ preferences are matched (Van

Vianen 2000), subordinates are provided with enhanced resources from their leader

(Eisenberger et al. 2010). This enables them to meet their job demands better, and

accordingly their perception of person-job fit is enhanced, which in turn catalyzes positive

outcomes like employee well-being and innovative behavior.

In addition to the supporting explanation from the LMX theory (Graen 1976), we argue

that inclusive leadership positively influences employee well-being through person-job fit

in two possible ways. First, an inclusive leader’s supportive behavior may boost employee

perception of person-job fit by forming a supportive work climate (Babakus et al. 2011).

This is because a supportive work climate may foster employee motivation and lessen their

negative feelings resulting from failures and hardship in their jobs (Gong et al. 2009).

Thus, inclusive leadership positively affects person-job fit. The perception of person-job

fit, in turn, contributes to enhance employee well-being, as it creates more joy and lessens

stress in work (Quinn 2005). These linkages suggest that person-job fit acts as a mediator in

the effect of inclusive leadership on employee well-being. Second, supportive behavior of

inclusive leaders supplies employees with mastery experiences, since the latter have more

opportunities to receive positive feedbacks about their efforts and performance (Tims et al.

2011). Thus, they are more likely to experience a fit between their abilities and job

requirements. These results suggest that inclusive leadership acts as a catalyst to employee

perception of person-job fit. With the positive perception of a match between their abilities

and job demands, employees tend to experience more satisfaction and less stress and

exhaustion incurred during the work process (Singh and Greenhaus 2004); therefore, their

well-being is enhanced. Clearly, inclusive leadership enhances employees’ perception of

person-job fit which in turn influences employee well-being. Thus, we propose the fol-

lowing hypothesis:

H6 Person-job fit mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee well-being.

1884 S. B. Choi et al.

123

An inclusive leader’s explicit attention to followers’ needs is a job resource, which

influences employees’ assessment of their abilities in relation to their job’s requirements. We

reason that an inclusive leader’s open discussion and prompt responses to employees when

needed can enhance clarity in employees’ work roles (Thomas and Lankau 2009, Turner et al.

2002) and mitigate employees’ hardship in their jobs (Gong et al. 2009). Besides, frequent

exhibition of supportive behavior of the inclusive leader offers affluent mastery experiences

among employees (Bandura 1977) thanks to the increased opportunities to receive positive

feedback (Tims et al. 2011). This enhances employees’ confidence in their abilities to perform

their tasks. Hence, inclusive leadership catalyzes employees’ perception of person-job fit.

The person-job fit may positively influence employee innovative behavior because the

confidence in capabilities to complete the job may raise employee optimism in trying new

things, ideas, and processes (Cerne et al. 2013). In addition, when employees have a positive

perception of their abilities-job demands fit, the confidence accompanied enables them to

think about the issues more flexibly and creatively (Avolio et al. 2004), which is useful for the

generalization of innovative ideas. This suggests that inclusive leadership is relevant to

person-job fit, which in turn influences employee innovative behavior. Hence, we propose the

following hypothesis:

H7 Person-job fit mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior.

3 Methodology

3.1 Respondents and Procedure

Five companies from the telecommunication industry in Vietnam participated in this study.

These five companies were in the list of 500 largest enterprises in Vietnam (Vietnam Report

2013), ranked by revenue, profits, growth rates, number of employees, and assets. Among

their various branches around the country, only the main branches in Hanoi city were con-

tacted for data collection. This particular population was selected based on two main criteria.

First, the rates of employee concentration in Hanoi branches were higher compared to others.

Second, through our conversations with their HR staffs, we learned that these companies

valued their employees’ well-being and innovative behavior. While they were seeking ways

to enhance employee well-being and innovative behavior, they would be more willing to

cooperate with us on this research. The demographic information of the sample are as follows:

64 % were males; 68 % were aged 25–39 years; 11 % were aged below 25 years; 21 % were

aged over 40 years; 71 % had earned a bachelor’s degree; 18 % had earned postgraduate

degrees; 79 % had a job tenure of two to ten years; and finally, the majority of the respondents

worked in production (33 %) and marketing (23 %) sections.

We used a questionnaire that was initially written in English and translated to Viet-

namese language. Then, the translated version was back-translated into the source lan-

guage by a different translator to check for meaning compatibility. The technique

continued until the translated version became representative of the originating question-

naire. The questionnaire consisted of two main parts: Part (1) was designed with five

closed-ended multiple-choice questions about employees’ demographic information; Part

(2) was used to obtain employees’ ratings on the measuring items of the study’s variables.

The questionnaires were distributed over 3 weeks. We identified a contact person in

each organization and provided the contact people with information about the

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1885

123

questionnaire by email or telephone. Of the 13 organizations contacted, five provided a

reply. Then, the questionnaires were sent to the contact people in person for distribution to

the participants. We provided a box for completed questionnaires at each organization’s

reception desk. Participants were informed of the study objectives and the preservation of

confidentiality of individual responses. Once a week, a reminder call was made to the

contact people. Then, we collected the completed questionnaires from the contact people

and the boxes initially put at the reception desks. Out of 300 questionnaires delivered, 216

were returned, giving a response rate of 72 %. Of these 216 questionnaires, nine ques-

tionnaires were considered invalid due to omitted or incorrect answers. Eventually, 207

responses were found valid for data analysis. According to Malhotra et al. (2006), the

number of participants for an exploratory study should be at least 4–5 times the total

number of items in the study. Since our study contained 27 items, its sample size of 207

respondents meets this criterion. Besides, Bentler and Chou (1987) suggested that under

the normal distribution theory, the ratio of sample size to the number of free parameters

should be close to 5:1 to get trustworthy parameter estimates in Structural Equa-

tion Modeling (SEM). In this study, this ratio was 4.8:1, as the number of free parameters

was 54, including 27 error variances, a total of 23 (27-4) factor loadings, and four first-

order factor variances. Thus, this study’s sample size is moderately sufficient to estimate

the parameters.

3.2 Measurement

3.2.1 Employee Well-Being

Items measuring employee well-being (a = .974) were adopted from Arnold et al. (2007). They comprised six items that ask employees about the extent of positive affective well-

being they experienced. A sampling item was ‘‘In the past six months, I have felt joyful.’’

Each item was rated on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7

(strongly agree). The scale reliability was reported by Arnold et al. (2007) with Cronbach’s

a of .97. It was also found to positively correlate with transformational leadership and meaningful work (Arnold et al. 2007). The Cronbach’s a of our scale was .974.

3.2.2 Employee Innovative Behavior

Nine items adopted from Janssen (2000) were used to measure employee innovative

behavior (a = .953). An example of the items used was ‘‘I create new ideas for difficult issues.’’ They were rated by employees on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In the study by Janssen (2000), the nine-item

innovative behavior scale was rated by both employees and supervisors and its reliability

was reported to be appropriate with Cronbach’s a of .95 for the self-rated and .96 for the supervisor rated scores. Besides, Janssen (2000) also reported positive correlation of

innovative behavior with job demands. The Cronbach’s a of our scale was .953.

3.2.3 Inclusive Leadership

Inclusive leadership was measured with nine items (a = .951) that were adopted from Carmeli et al. (2010). The items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1

(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A sample item was ‘‘The manager is open to

1886 S. B. Choi et al.

123

hearing new ideas.’’ The scale reliability was reported by its developers with Cronbach’s a of .94 (Carmeli et al. 2010). Carmeli et al. (2010) also found that the scale correlates

positively with employee psychological safety and employee involvement in creative

work. Previous research confirmed its validity and found positive correlations with

affective organizational commitment, employee creativity, and work engagement (Choi

et al. 2015). The Cronbach’s a of our scale was .951.

3.2.4 Person-Job Fit

To measure person-job fit, three items adopted from Mulki et al. (2006) were employed

(a = .912). A sample item was ‘‘My skills and abilities perfectly match my job demands.’’ All of the items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Its reliability was reported adequate with Cronbach’s a of .87 (Mulki et al. 2006). Mulki et al. (2006) have found that it has positive correlations with

participative leadership, overall job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, but

negative correlation with emotional exhaustion. The Cronbach’s a of our scale was .912.

3.3 Control Variables

Well-being has been found to fluctuate with age and gender (Keyes et al. 2002). Innovative

behavior is influenced by age, gender, job category (Choi and Chang 2009), job tenure, and

educational level (Tierney and Farmer 2002). Concretely, Whittington and Smith-Doerr

(2005) revealed that men have higher levels of innovation than women. Janssen (2001)

showed that age is a potential predictor of creativity. Rank et al. (2009) posited that people

in the marketing department may yield more potential for innovative behavior than those

working in routine areas such as human resources. Therefore, we used age, gender, edu-

cational level, job tenure, and job category as the control variables.

3.4 Assessments of Common Method Variance

To minimize common method bias, in accordance with Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggestions,

we demonstrated our commitment to the confidentiality of responses by stating this goal on

the cover letter attached to each questionnaire. Common method bias was assessed using

Harman’s single factor test for all items. Our results suggest that no general factor emerged to

account for the majority of the variance. An unrotated factor analysis extracted four distinct

factors that accounted for 81.647 % of the total variance. The largest factor explained

36.311 % of the variance. Therefore, common method variance did not affect this analysis.

In addition, variance inflation factors (VIF) were calculated to check for multi-collinearity.

VIF values ranged from 1.052 to 1.222, which were much lower than the upper limit of 10.0

(Neter et al. 1989). Therefore, multi-collinearity issues did not affect this analysis.

4 Results

4.1 Reliability and Validity

The reliability of the constructs was tested using Cronbach’s alpha (a). The Cronbach’s alpha values of the constructs ranged from .912 to .974. These results indicate that ade-

quate internal consistency was associated with most of the measures. To test validity, we

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1887

123

conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on construct measures. The extraction method

used was principal component analysis. Rather than oblique rotation, orthogonal rotation,

varimax in particular, was chosen because the factors were assumed to be independent

(Field 2009), and the literature has supported it as the most widely used method in psy-

chological research (Fabrigar et al. 1999). Four factors emerged with eigenvalues greater

than 1, accounting for 81.647 % of the variance. Four items with low factor loadings were

ignored for subsequent analyses. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was also carried out

to ensure discriminant validity. All the remaining 23 items were used for running CFA in

Amos. The widely used method, which assumes multivariate normal data and a reasonable

sample size (about 200 observations), maximum likelihood (ML) estimation, was selected

(Hox and Bechger 1998). The fit indices, v2 = 313.852; df = 183; p \ .000; v2/ df = 1.715; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .958; incremental fit index (IFI) = .984; root

mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .059; normed fit index (NFI) = .963;

Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .982; and comparative fit index (CFI) = .984, showed that

the hypothesized four-factor model had good fit. Hence, the factors in the measurement

model had adequate reliability and validity.

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the study constructs. Of the four constructs,

inclusive leadership has the highest mean (5.089), while employee well-being has the

lowest mean (4.300). Most of the constructs were found to be correlated. With respect to

control variables, employee well-being was correlated with gender and age, while inno-

vative behavior was correlated with gender, age, educational level, job tenure, and job

category.

4.2 Hypothesis Testing

We used Amos 20 to conduct structural equation modeling. The standard estimation

method in SEM, maximum likelihood estimation, was selected because of our moderately

sized sample and normal data distribution (Hox and Bechger 1998). Our data for all

indicator variables met Weston and Gore’s (2006) criterion for normality (i.e., skewness

less than an absolute value of three and kurtosis less than an absolute value of 10). The

largest skewness of our measured variables was 1.5, while the largest kurtosis was 1.2. Our

measurement model included latent constructs with all the observed items that were

confirmed after CFA. The path diagram of the structural model is shown in Fig. 1.

Although the GFI has a value of .867, below the benchmark of .90, it is considered

acceptable (Hair et al. 1998). Other indices, including v2/df = 1.708, RMR = .044, NFI = .963, RMSEA = .059, TLI = .982, and CFI = .984, collectively suggest that our

measurement model fits well (Hu and Bentler 1999). Our hypothesized model was tested

against two alternative models. The first alternative model placed employee well-being as a

mediator together with employee person-job fit to predict employee innovative behavior.

The indices of this model show the following results: v2/df = 1.831; RMR = .134; NFI = .961; RMSEA = .064; and CFI = .982. Another alternative model with both

person-job fit and employee innovative behavior as mediators to predict employee well-

being was tested, and its model fit indices include the following: v2/df = 1.737; RMR = .100; NFI = .963; RMSEA = .060; and CFI = .984. Clearly, the alternative

models suggest poorer fits compared to the hypothesized model.

Hypothesis 1, which tested the relationship between inclusive leadership and employee

well-being, was supported (b = .189; p \ .01). Similarly, Hypothesis 2, which tested the relationship between inclusive leadership and innovative behavior, was supported

(b = .180; p \ .05). Hypothesis 3, which tested the effect of inclusive leadership on

1888 S. B. Choi et al.

123

person-job fit was supported (b = .210; p \ .01). Hypothesis 4, which tested the influence of person-job fit on employee well-being, was also supported (b = .337; p \ .01). Finally, Hypothesis 5, which examined the relationship between person-job fit and innovative

behavior, was supported (b = .171; p \ .05) (Table 2). To test the mediating effects of person-job fit, we conducted bootstrapping tests using

structural equation modeling with a bootstrap sample of 5000 based on well-defined recent

recommendations (Mallinckrodt et al. 2006). This method directly produces bootstrapped

biased corrected confidence intervals for indirect effects (Mallinckrodt et al. 2006).

Two separate mediation analyses were conducted. In the first mediation analysis, we

began by testing the direct effect of the independent variable (i.e., inclusive leadership) on

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender .358 .480 –

2. Age 1.106 .556 -.021 –

3. Educational level

1.169 .553 .009 .178* –

4. Job tenure 1.314 .808 .060 .357** .195** –

5. Job category 1.652 1.406 -.210** .097 .195** .178* –

6. Inclusive leadership

5.089 .886 -.039 .121 .180** .078 .120

7. Person-job fit 4.927 1.285 -.181** .166* .153* -.008 .124 .213**

8. Employee well-being

4.300 1.311 -.278** .172* .073 .117 .088 .340** .324**

9. Innovative behavior

4.463 1.141 -.261** .259** .280** .181** .374** .234** .222** .074

N = 207

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

H5

H4

H3

H2

H1

Inclusive Leadership

Person-job Fit

Employee Well-being

Innovative Behavior

Fig. 1 Analytical model

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1889

123

the dependent variable (i.e., employee well-being). Then, we included person-job fit as the

mediator in the established model and obtained the indirect effect of inclusive leadership

on employee well-being. The second mediation analysis followed the same procedure with

employee innovative behavior as a dependent variable.

As seen in Table 3, our results show that person-job fit significantly mediated the

relation between inclusive leadership and employee innovative behavior (estimate of

standardized indirect effect: .037; Bias corrected confidence intervals [95 % CI]: .007 to

.092). Person-job fit also mediated the relationship between inclusive leadership and

employee well-being (estimate of standardized indirect effect: .071; Bias corrected con-

fidence intervals [95 % CI]: .023–.144). Under the light of Zhao et al. (2010) discussion,

we concluded that person-job fit plays a mediating role in the relationship between

inclusive leadership and employee well-being and innovative behavior. We confirm that

both indirect and direct effects from the two mediation analyses (see Table 3) are statis-

tically significant (Zhao et al. 2010). Accordingly, Hypotheses 6 and 7 were supported.

5 Discussion

5.1 Theoretical Implications

While the existing literature suggests that a specific leadership style that exhibits positive

behavior to inspire employees may enhance employee well-being and innovative behavior

(Sharifirad 2013), our study also found that inclusive leadership, characterized by leaders’

openness, accessibility, and availability, is an effective way to achieve these two outcomes.

Our findings are in line with previous studies, indicating that inclusive leadership is pos-

itively related to employee well-being (Arnold et al. 2007; Densten 2005; Liu et al. 2010,

Sharifirad 2013) and innovative behavior (Gong et al. 2009; Mumford et al. 2002; Siva-

nathan et al. 2004).

As leader supportive behaviors are present in several leadership styles, inclusive leaders

perform distinct supportive behaviors. For instance, inclusive leadership concerns a lea-

der’s willingness to listen to followers’ ideas and requests, similar to servant leadership

(Van Dierendonck 2010). It focuses on listening and inviting employees’ inputs in the

decision-making process, which ultimately leads to quality relationship between the leader

and members (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995; Hollander 2009). Similar to servant leadership,

Table 2 Standardized estimates from the structural model

Direct effects Coefficient T_value Outcomes

Paths

Inclusive leadership ? Employee well-being (H1) .189** 2.779 Supported

Inclusive leadership ? Innovative behavior (H2) .180* 2.432 Supported

Inclusive leadership ? Person-job fit (H3) .210** 2.877 Supported

Person-job fit ? Employee well-being (H4) .337** 3.965 Supported

Person-job fit ? Innovative behavior (H5) .171* 2.443 Supported

v2 = 314.192 (df = 184, p \ .000); RMR = .044; GFI = .867; CFI = .984; RMSEA = .059; NFI = .963; IFI = .984; TLI = .982

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

1890 S. B. Choi et al.

123

inclusive leaders focus on caring for followers’ needs, actively seeking their contributions,

and providing them with formal and informal support to complete their task better (Van

Dierendonck 2010). Through sufficient stress on leader availability and promptness, an

inclusive leader makes significant efforts for supporting and meeting followers’ needs and

interests (Hollander 2009; Van Dierendonck 2010).

By focusing on inclusive leadership, our study extends leadership research in several

ways. First, our study confirmed the positive association between inclusive leadership and

employee involvement in innovative activities in the context of Vietnamese employees.

We found that leadership and its outcomes are highly culturally dependent. This is because

the national culture can affect personal values, attitudes, behavior, as well as organizational

practice. Vietnam, as an Asian country, has different cultural characteristics, such as high

collectivism, high uncertainty avoidance, and long-term oriented culture (Hofstede 2001;

Wang and Yi 2011), in contrast to the U.S. and European contexts. For instance, collec-

tivistic cultures emphasize the significance of the group and the importance of cohesion

within the social group. Leaders and employees in these cultures are integrated into strong,

cohesive groups from the very beginning of their careers in a company, whereas in indi-

vidualistic cultures, each employee is expected to look after himself or herself (Hofstede

2001).

Thus, in Vietnam, which is a highly collectivistic society, leaders are expected to

take care of their employees beyond the obligations prescribed in formal contracts

(Ramamoorthy et al. 2007). This cultural factor helps to shape inclusive leadership and

strengthen leaders’ inclusive and supportive behavior in managing their employees. If

employees receive benefits from the organization in a collectivistic society, then they will

feel obliged to reciprocate. Employees in cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, like

Vietnam, tend to avoid uncomfortable and uncertain situations by sharing a close rela-

tionship with the leader. Employees in uncertainty-avoiding cultures are more emotional

and motivated by intrinsic factors like harmonious relationship with colleagues and

leaders. Leaders in this culture may strengthen employee motivation and organizational

Table 3 Bootstrap analysis of the magnitude and statistical significance of the direct and indirect effects

Independent variable

Mediator variable

Dependent variable

SMC Beta standardized direct/indirect effect

b mean direct/ indirect effect

SE of mean

95 % CI a

(lower, upper)

Inclusive leadership

Employee well- being

.067 .260*** .377 a

.099 a

.117–.393

Inclusive leadership

Person- job fit

Employee well- being

.177 .071** .189 .030 .023–.144

Inclusive leadership

Innovative behavior

.047 .216** .305 a

.097 a

.073–.354

Inclusive leadership

Person- job fit

Innovative behavior

.075 .037* .179 .021 .007–.092

CI confidence interval, SMC squared multiple correlation a These values are based on unstandardized bootstrapped beta coefficients

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1891

123

commitment by providing close care and concern for employees and emotional ties, which

can be effectively achieved by inclusive leadership.

Long-term views on society and employees in the Vietnamese culture may also decrease

incentives for leaders to share a vertical-based relationship with employees and maintain a

performance-oriented leadership style. In particular, in this culture, maintaining quality

leader-member relationship over time is likely to be more important than immediate

performance maximization (Zhang et al. 2006). Employees in long-term-oriented cultures

are more motivated based on inclusive leadership, which is important for improving

employee well-being and innovative behavior in the Vietnamese context.

On the other hand, House et al. (2004) divided 62 countries into 10 clusters in the

GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) study and placed

each societal cluster within six leadership styles. Inclusive leadership has not been directly

addressed in the GLOBE study. However, inclusive leadership shares some common

characteristics of other leadership styles, such as team-oriented, participative, and humane

styles. While both team-oriented leadership and inclusive leadership emphasize collabo-

ration with others, inclusive leadership encourages inputs from followers in the process of

completing a job, which is identical to participative leadership. Moreover, both inclusive

leadership and humane leadership emphasize support and concern for followers (Carmeli

et al. 2010; House et al. 2004; Koopman et al. 1999).

Although we found that information about Vietnam was not reported in the GLOBE

study, among the ten societal clusters evaluated, Vietnam is closely associated with the

Confucian culture cluster of China, South Korea, and Japan, as Vietnam has been strongly

influenced by Confucianism (Nguyen 2011). In this vein, we assume that inclusive lead-

ership is largely relevant to the Vietnamese organizational context because both team-

oriented and humane styles are highly valued by Confucian countries, and participative

style is moderately valued in this cluster (House et al. 2004). This suggests that inclusive

leadership may unevenly be present in the Vietnamese context, and that this country-

specific culture exerts an important role in shaping inclusive leadership and its effec-

tiveness (Koopman et al. 1999).

Moreover, Mumford et al. (2002) and Carmeli et al. (2010) stated that leadership plays a

crucial role in facilitating employee involvement in innovative activities in knowledge

intensive, complex, and uncertain environments like the Vietnam telecommunication

industry. Our study used the sample of telecommunication firms in Vietnam, which were

forced to focus on employees’ job-related performance such as innovative behavior

(Nguyen and Papadopoulos 2011). We believe that the findings of our study reflect the big

picture of the technological and knowledge-intensive firms in the Vietnamese context in

particular and the Asian countries with a Confucian influence in general.

Second, most of the leadership studies in relation to employee well-being and inno-

vative behavior have focused on a general pattern of leader behavior (Oldham and

Cummings 1996; Tierney et al. 1999; Carmeli et al. 2010). Especially, a majority of

leadership studies in relation to employee well-being and innovative behavior have cen-

tered on transformational leadership (Sharifirad 2013), in which a leader motivates

employees and influences their behavior by getting them to ‘‘internalize and prioritize a

larger collective cause over individual interests’’ (Lian and Tui 2012, p. 67). This indicates

that a transformational leader focuses on influencing employees through a pursuit of

organizational goals first (Kanungo 2001). However, our study on inclusive leadership may

follow a different path through which leaders can catalyze employee well-being and

innovative behavior by highlighting follower needs (Hollander 2009). This observation is

in line with previous calls to focus on follower needs for the purpose of creating a

1892 S. B. Choi et al.

123

motivated and productive workforce (Shuck and Herd 2012). Our study on inclusive

leadership, a core facet of relational leadership, contributes to enrich the literature linking

relational leadership and innovative performance, which is still in the early stage of

development (Carmeli et al. 2010; Uhl-Bien 2006).

Third, we also discovered that person-job fit mediates the relationship between inclusive

leadership and employee well-being and innovative behavior. Our study’s result extends

the findings of Brkich et al. (2002) and Singh and Greenhaus (2004), showing that per-

ceptions of person-job fit make employees happier in their jobs. Likewise, it is consistent

with the findings of Afsar et al. (2014a, b) and Ying (2011), which identified the influence

of person-job fit on innovative behavior. Nevertheless, our evaluation of person-job fit as a

mediator adds two key contributions to the scholarly world. First, our study’s focus on

person-job fit as a mediator is a timely response to the call for studying key mechanisms by

which leader behaviors are associated with employee well-being and involvement in

creative activities (Sharifirad 2013; Carmeli et al. 2010). Our results may motivate future

researchers to test person-job fit as a potential mediator in the relationships between other

specific leadership styles and employee well-being as well as innovative behavior. Second,

as previous studies have documented, person-job fit influences job satisfaction, quality of

work life, positive adjustment in new organization, and turnover intention (Cable and

Derue 2002; Edwards 1996; Guan et al. 2010). Our study establishes a direction for future

research to evaluate person-job fit as a mediator in the relationship between inclusive

leadership and these outcomes. In addition, the present study offers the LMX theory as a

sound theoretical framework in understanding the relationships between leadership and

individual-level outcome. Our study provides a clue for the LMX theory to extend its

applicability to leadership study in explaining other types of leadership and their

effectiveness.

Our study treated person-job fit as a single construct connoting both employees’ abil-

ities–job demands fit and employees’needs–job supplies fit, as shown in many previous

studies (Edwards 1991; Kristof 1996; Mulki et al. 2006). From the methodological per-

spective, person-job fit can be measured by either an actual fit, gauging the fit between

separately rated personal and job characteristics (Cable and Judge 1996), or a perceived fit,

measuring the perception of compatibility or similarity between the value of the person and

job asking that how a person fits well in the job (Kristof-Brown et al. 2002; Mitchell et al.

2001). In this regard, Edwards et al. (2006) pointed out that measures of person-job fit tend

to overlap with measures of affect, as the perception of person-job fit that combines the

person and job, disregards the direction of their differences, treating positive and negative

discrepancies equally. They also distinguished the other approach (an actual fit), which is a

comparison between the person and job characteristics, by assigning different weights to

them depending on how the comparison is framed. We applied employees’ perceptions of

person-job fit, which seems more appropriate, because our study focused on individual’s

perception and attitude as the central predictors of individual-level behavior and outcomes

(Cable and Judge 1997). However, future studies should consider both the actual and

perceived person-job fit approaches, and investigate further the mechanisms linking the

distinct results of each approach to strengthen the theoretical and empirical implications of

the person-job fit.

5.2 Managerial Implications

Our findings indicate that inclusive leadership and person-job fit are positively associated

to employee well-being and innovative behavior. In order to improve employee well-being

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1893

123

and innovative behavior, managers need to put leadership practices under consideration

(Sparks et al. 2001; Vinarski-Peretz and Carmeli 2011). We suggest that managers should

raise supervisor awareness of the positive effects of inclusive leadership on employee well-

being and innovative behavior. In doing so, they may generate supervisors’ greater com-

mitment to the application of this type of leadership at work. Furthermore, managers

should provide immediate supervisors with sufficient training on the practices of inclusive

leadership so that they can exhibit openness, accessibility, and availability effectively to

their employees (Carmeli et al. 2010). Besides, to promote the effectiveness of inclusive

leadership, human resource policies and practices such as training, performance assess-

ment, and reward systems should be aligned with and in support of an inclusive leadership

style (Choi et al. 2015).

Moreover, in order to boost employees’ well-being and innovative behavior, managers

should pay attention to managing employees’ perceptions of person-job fit effectively

through the process of hire, communication, and socialization. Cable and DeRue (2002)

disclosed that managers may measure and manage person-job fit both during anticipatory

socialization (selection and recruitment) and after organizational entry (training and

socialization). We suggest that managers need to examine employees’ characteristics

carefully to select the fitting employees for the jobs or the tasks (Brkich et al. 2002; Singh

and Greenhaus 2004). In the working processes, managers need to provide constructive

feedbacks and appropriate mentoring, which may enhance employees’ perception of per-

son-job fit. They may also enhance employees’ perception of person-job fit by providing

training classes, extra courses, and seminars with a focus on developing employee

knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for their job and organization’s demands (Hamid

and Yahya 2011).

5.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research

We note five main limitations of this study. First, this is a cross-sectional study. It is

restricted from testing whether inclusive leadership caused higher employee well-being

and innovative behavior. Future studies should conduct longitudinal research to verify the

findings. Second, the ratings of all variables were collected from the same employees,

which may result in inflated relationships because of single-source effects. Future

researchers are encouraged to collect data from various sources. Third, due to the choice of

the sample, which was limited to the employees of only five telecommunication industry

organizations in the Vietnamese context, our results cannot be generalized to the entire

Vietnamese context or organizations in other industries. Future research should involve

larger and more generalized samples. Fourth, our application of the EFA solution is a

possible limitation. We used orthogonal rotation, assuming that our factors (or dimensions

of these factors) are uncorrelated. However, this assumption may not always hold, as

Fabrigar et al. (1999) indicated that many constructs in behavioral studies are possibly

correlated with one another. In such cases, oblique rotation may be more appropriate. We,

therefore, suggest that future research be cautious about selecting rotations in performing

EFA.

The last limitation of our study involves the sample size. While our sample size met the

criterion by Malhotra et al. (2006) for an exploratory study, it moderately met the criterion

of the ratio of 5:1, as specified by Bentler and Chou (1987) for SEM. Future studies are

encouraged to use a larger sample size to increase the validity of empirical findings.

1894 S. B. Choi et al.

123

6 Conclusion

This study focused on the effects of inclusive leadership on employee well-being and

innovative behavior and the underlying mechanism of these effects. Our findings reveal

that inclusive leadership, characterized by openness, accessibility, and availability, cat-

alyzes employees’ perception of person-job fit, which is in turn positively related to

employee well-being and innovative behavior. The study provides additional support for

the role that supportive leader plays in enhancing employee well-being and innovative

behavior. This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, the study provides an

important step toward understanding inclusive leadership, a relatively underexplored facet

of relational leadership, and leadership research, in general (Carmeli et al. 2010). Second,

it opens a promising path for future research to include person-job fit as a potential

mediator in examining other leadership-employee positive outcome relationships. Finally,

it heightens the relevance of inclusive leadership to the Vietnamese culture and opens up a

fertile ground for cross-cultural future research of inclusive leadership.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Items

Variables Items

Inclusive leadership My manager is open to hearing new ideas

My manager is attentive to new opportunities to improve work processes

My manager is open to discuss the desired goals and new ways to achieve them

My manager is available for consultation on problems

My manager is an ongoing ‘‘presence’’ in this team—someone who is readily available

My manager is available for professional questions I would like to consult with him/her

My manager is ready to listen to my requests

My manager encourages me to access him/her on emerging issues

Person-job fit My skills and abilities perfectly match with my job demands

My personal likes and dislikes match perfectly with my job demands

There is a good fit between my job and me

Employee well-being In the past 6 months, I have felt motivated

In the past 6 months, I have felt energetic

In the past 6 months, I have felt enthusiastic

In the past 6 months, I have felt lively

In the past 6 months, I have felt joyful

In the past 6 months, I have felt cheerful

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1895

123

Variables Items

Employee innovative behavior

I create new ideas for difficult issues

I search out new working methods, techniques, or instruments

I generate original solutions for problems

I mobilize support for innovative ideas

I acquire approval for innovative ideas

I make important organizational members enthusiastic for innovative ideas

I transform innovative ideas into useful applications

I introduce innovative ideas into the work environment in a systematic way

I evaluate the utility of innovative ideas

References

Afsar, B., Badir, Y., & Saeed, B. B. (2014a). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(8), 1270–1300.

Afsar, B., Badir, Y. F., & Saeed, B. (2014b). Person-job fit, person-organization fit and innovative work behavior. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), 14644.

Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative work behavior and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement. Career Development International, 17(3), 208–230.

Akkermans, J., Schaufeli, W. B., Brenninkmeijer, V., & Blonk, R. W. B. (2013). The role of career competencies in the job demands-resources model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 356–366.

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123–167.

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California management review, 40(1), 39–58.

Åmo, B. (2006). Employee innovation behavior in health care: The influence from management and col- leagues. International Nursing Review, 53(3), 231–237.

Anderson, N. R., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovative research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147–174.

Arnold, K. A., Tuner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193–203.

Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Walumbwa, F., Luthans, F., & May, D. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leader’s impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quar- terly, 15(6), 801–823.

Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Ashill, N. J. (2011). Service worker burnout and turnover intentions: Roles of person-job fit, servant leadership, and customer orientation. Services Marketing Quarterly, 32(1), 17–31.

Bahl, K. T., Gulati, N., & Ansari, M. A. (2009). Leader-member exchange and subordinate outcomes: Test of a mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(2), 106–122.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance. NY: Free Press. Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods &

Research, 16(1), 78–117. Brkich, M., Jeffs, D., & Carless, S. A. (2002). A global self-report measure of person-job fit. European

Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18(1), 43–51. Butler, J. K., Cantrell, R. S., & Flick, R. J. (1999). Transformational leadership behaviors, upward trust, and

satisfaction in self-managed workteams. Organizational Development Journal, 17(1), 13–28. Cable, D. M., & Derue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884.

1896 S. B. Choi et al.

123

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67(3), 294–311.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person–organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546–561.

Carmeli, A., 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.

Cartwright, S., & Holmes, N. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 199–208.

Černe, M., Jaklič, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2013). Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective. Leadership, 9(1), 63–85.

Choi, J. N., & Chang, J. Y. (2009). Innovation implementation in the public sector: An integration of institutional and collective dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 245–253.

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, 43(6), 931–944.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in the workplace: A review and synthesis on the literature. Journal of Management, 25(3), 357–384.

Densten, I. L. (2005). The relationship between visioning behaviors of leaders and follower burnout. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 105–118.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1999). Subjective well-being three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.

Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 283–357.

Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 292–339.

Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 802.

Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., et al. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.

Farr, J. L., & Ford, C. M. (1990). Individual innovation. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 265–284). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Introducing statistical method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transfor- mational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647–661.

George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605–622.

Gilbreath, B., & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behavior to employee psychological well-being. Work and Stress, 18(3), 255–266.

Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 765–778.

Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making process within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1991). Partnership-making applies equally well to teammate-sponsor teammate-competence network, and teammate-teammate relationships. Journal of Management Sys- tems, 3(3), 49–54.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader- member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1897

123

Guan, Y., Deng, H., Bond, M. H., Chen, S. X., & Chan, C. C. H. (2010). Person-job fit and work-related attitudes among Chinese employees: Need for cognitive closure as moderator. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(3), 250–260.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis, 5th. NY: Prentice Hall International.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life. Journal of Management, 30(6), 859–879.

Hamid, S. N. A., & Yahya, K. K. (2011). Relationship between person-job fit and person-organization fit on employees’ work engagement: A study among engineers in semiconductor companies in Malaysia. The Annual Conference on Innovations in Business & Management, London, UK.

Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2006). Too much of a good thing: The curvilinear effect of leader-member exchange on stress. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 65–84.

Hecht, T. D., & Allen, N. J. (2005). Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being from the perspective of person–job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing at a time? Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 155–178.

Herman, H. M., Huang, X., & Lam, W. (2013). Why does transformational leadership matter for employee turnover? A multi-foci social exchange perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 763–776.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Thousand Oaks.

Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. New York: Routledge.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.

Hox, J. J., & Bechger, T. M. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modeling. Family Science Review, 11, 354–373.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: con- ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

Huhtala, H., & Parzefall, M. R. (2007). Promotion of employee wellbeing and innovativeness: An oppor- tunity for a mutual benefit. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(3), 299–307.

Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69–90.

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277.

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73(3), 287–302.

Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of management journal, 44(5), 1039–1050.

Janssen, O. (2004). How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 201–215.

Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B. M. Straw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.

Kanungo, R. N. (2001). Ethical values of transactional and transformational leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(4), 257–265.

Kernis, M. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1–26. Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of

two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 1007–1022. Koopman, P. L., Den Hartog, D. N., & Konrad, E. (1999). National culture and leadership profiles in

Europe: Some results from the GLOBE study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psy- chology, 8(4), 503–520.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 985–993.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.

1898 S. B. Choi et al.

123

Lian, L. K., & Tui, L. G. (2012). Leadership styles and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating effect of subordinates’ competence and downward influence tactics. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 13(2), 59–96.

Lin, Y. C., Yu, C., & Yi, C. C. (2014). The effects of positive affect, person-job fit, and well-being on job performance. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 42(9), 1537–1547.

Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Liu, J., Siu, O. L., & Shi, K. (2010). Transformational leadership and employee well-being: The mediating

roles of trust in leaders and self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(3), 454–479.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Hand-book of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management science, 52(12), 1865–1883.

Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testing the statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 372–378.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422.

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121.

Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W. B. (2006). Emotional exhaustion and organizational deviance: Can the right job and a leader’s style make a difference? Journal of Business Research, 59(12), 1222–1230.

Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on cre- ativity. Multi-Level Issues in Strategy and Methods, 4, 11–73.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people. Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750.

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.

Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1989). Applied linear regression models (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Nguyen, C. T. (2011). Impacts of socio-culture on the development of autonomous learning: A lens of Vietnamese context. Journal of Studies in Education, 1(1), 1–10.

Nguyen, A. H., & Papadopoulos, T. (2011). Exploring the potential benefits of CRM systems in customer- centric age: A case study of a telecom company in Vietnam. European, Mediterranean & Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems, Greece: Athens.

Nusair, N., Ababneh, R., & Bae, Y. K. (2012). The impact of transformational leadership style on innovation as perceived by public employees in Jordan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 22(3), 182–201.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.

Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Quinn, R. W. (2005). Flow in knowledge work: high performance experience in the design of national security technology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 610–641.

Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., & Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of innovative work behavior: Development and test of an integrated model. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 142–150.

Ramamoorthy, N., Kulkarni, S. P., Gupta, A., & Flood, P. C. (2007). Individualism–collectivism orientation and employee attitudes: A comparison of employees from the high-technology sector in India and Ireland. Journal of International Management, 13(2), 187–203.

Rank, J., Nelson, N. E., Allen, T. D., & Xu, X. (2009). Leadership predictors of innovation and task performance: Subordinates’ self-esteem and self-presentation as moderators. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 465–489.

Report, Vietnam. (2013). Vietnam top 500 company profiles. Hanoi: Nguyen Kim. Reuvers, M., Van Engen, M. L., Vinkenburg, C. J., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2008). Transformational lead-

ership and innovative work behavior: Exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creativity and Innovation Management, 17(3), 227–244.

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1899

123

Sanders, K., Moorkamp, M., Torka, N., Groeneveld, S., & Groeneveld, C. (2010). How to support inno- vative behavior? The role of LMX and satisfaction with HR practices. Technology and Investment, 1(1), 59–68.

Schabracq, M., Winnubst, J., & Cooper, C. (1996). Handbook of work and health psychology. New York: John Wiley.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293–315.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity? Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33–53.

Sharifirad, M. S. (2013). Transformational leadership, innovative work behavior, and employee well-being. Global Business Perspectives, 1(3), 198–225.

Shin, Y. (2004). A person-environment fit model for virtual organizations. Journal of Management, 30(5), 725–743.

Shuck, B., & Herd, A. (2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 156–181.

Singh, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2004). The relation between career decision-making strategies and person-job fit: A study of job changers. Journal of Vocational Behaviors, 64(1), 198–221.

Sivanathan, N., Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., & Barling, J. (2004). Leading well: Transformational leadership and well-being. In A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 241–255). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sofarelli, D., & Brown, D. (1998). The need for nursing leadership in uncertain times. Journal of Nursing Management, 6(4), 201–207.

Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21 st century

workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 489–509. Thomas, C. H., & Lankau, M. J. (2009). Preventing burnout: The effects of LMX and mentoring on

socialization, role stress, and burnout. Human Resource Management, 48(3), 417–432. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to

creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity:

The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620. Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’

daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 121–131. Tse, H. H. M., Huang, X., & Lam, W. (2013). Why does transformational leadership matter for employee

turnover? A multi-foci social exchange perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(5), 763–776. Turner, N., Barling, J., Epitropaki, O., Butcher, V., & Milner, C. (2002). Transformational leadership and

moral reasoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 304–311. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and orga-

nizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676. Van Dierendonck, D. (2010). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4),

1228–1261. Van Dierendonck, D., Haynes, C., Borrill, C., & Stride, C. (2004). Leadership behavior and subordinate

well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(2), 165–175. Van Horn, J. E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Scheurs, P. J. G. (2004). The structure of occupational

well-being: A study among Dutch teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 365–375.

Van Vianen, A. E. (2000). Person-organization fit: The match between newcomers’ and recruiters’ pref- erence for organizational cultures. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 113–149.

Vinarski-Peretz, H., Binyamin, G., & Carmeli, A. (2010). Subjective relational experiences and employee innovative behaviors in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 290–304.

Vinarski-Peretz, H., & Carmeli, A. (2011). Linking care felt to engagement in innovative behaviors in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological conditions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 43–53.

Volmer, J., Spark, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader-member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(12), 456–465.

Wang, S., & Yi, X. (2011). It’s happiness that counts: Full mediating effect of job satisfaction on the linkage from LMX to turnover intention in Chinese companies. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(3), 337–356.

1900 S. B. Choi et al.

123

Warr, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for the study of work and mental health. Work and Stress, 8(2), 84–97.

West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and inno- vation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51(3), 355–387.

Weston, R., & Gore, P. A., Jr. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751.

Whittington, K. B., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2005). Gender and commercial science: Women’s patenting in the life science. Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(4), 355–370.

Wright, T. A., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). Commitment, psychological well-being, and job performance: An examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job burn-out. Journal of Business and Management, 9(4), 389–406.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235–244.

Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1288–1309.

Yidong, T., & Xinxin, L. (2013). How ethical leadership influences employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 441–455.

Ying, Y. (2011). Study on the relationship of person-organization fit, psychological empowerment and employee’s innovative behavior. Doctoral dissertation. Jilin University.

Zhang, K., Song, L. J., Hackett, R. D., & Bycio, P. (2006). Cultural boundary of expectancy theory-based performance management: A commentary on DeNiSi and Pritchard’s performance improvement model. Management and Organization Review, 2(2), 279–294.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron & Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. The Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Well-Being: The Mediating… 1901

123

Journal of Happiness Studies is a copyright of Springer, 2017. All Rights Reserved.