This article was downloaded by: [Washington University in St Louis]

On: 29 December 2014, At: 14:55

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Involvement in

Creative Tasks in the Workplace: The Mediating Role of
Psychological Safety
a b c
Abraham Carmeli , Roni Reiter-Palmon & Enbal Ziv
a
Bar-Ilan University
b
University of Nebraska at Omaha
c
Bar-Ilan University
Published online: 10 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Abraham Carmeli , Roni Reiter-Palmon & Enbal Ziv (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,
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2010.504654

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 22(3), 250–260, 2010
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2010.504654

Inclusive Leadership and Employee Involvement

in Creative Tasks in the Workplace: The Mediating Role
of Psychological Safety
Abraham Carmeli
Bar-Ilan University
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

Roni Reiter-Palmon
University of Nebraska at Omaha

Enbal Ziv
Bar-Ilan University

This study examines how inclusive leadership (manifested by openness, accessibility,

and availability of a leader) fosters employee creativity in the workplace. Using a sample
of 150 employees, we investigated the relationship between inclusive leadership
(measured at Time 1), psychological safety, and employee involvement in creative work
tasks (measured at Time 2). The results of structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis
indicate that inclusive leadership is positively related to psychological safety, which, in
turn, engenders employee involvement in creative work.

The importance of understanding leadership in the relationships from the individual perspective with
context of relationship with followers has been promi- attention to individual perceptions, cognition, affect,
nent in leadership research. Starting with the Ohio State and behavior. The relational approach focuses on the
studies that identified two main behavioral patterns of relationship as the unit of analysis and the construction
consideration (relationship) and initiating structure of social reality. Uhl-Bien (2006) defined relational
(task; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004) to LMX theory leadership as ‘‘a social influence process through which
which that on differences in relationships between in- emergent coordination (i.e., evolving social order) and
group and out-group members and the leader (Gerstner change (i.e., new values, attitudes, approaches, beha-
& Day, 1997), leader relationships with followers have viors, ideologies, etc.) are constructed and produced’’
been found to be important for various work outcomes. (p. 668). This approach suggests that a better under-
More recently, researchers have pointed the need to standing of leadership will occur when not only the
attend to a rather understudied area of leadership leader style or leader–follower interactions are studied
research—relationship building as a vital form of leader- but also the process is investigated.
ship (i.e., relational leadership; Fletcher, 2004, 2007; Relational leadership is in early stages of develop-
Uhl-Bien, 2006). Relational Leadership Theory has been ment in leadership research. Researchers know little
suggested as a unifying framework that unites different about specific facets of relational leadership that may
approaches to the study of leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006). cultivate employee perceptions and facilitate work out-
Specifically, the term relational leadership can be used comes. In this article, we attempt to expand this line
to describe two types of theories. The entity theories view of research by focusing on inclusive leadership as a
specific form relational leadership. Inclusive leadership
Correspondence should be sent to Abraham Carmeli, Graduate refers here to leaders who exhibit openness, accessibility,
School of Business Administration, Economics Building, Bar-Ilan and availability in their interactions with followers. This
University, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]
 LEADERSHIP, EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT, AND CREATIVITY 251

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND

HYPOTHESES

Leadership and Creativity

Leadership has been viewed as a particularly important
factor that influences creativity and innovation in
organizations (Mumford & Hunter, 2005; Shalley &
Gilson, 2004; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).
FIGURE 1 Results for the hypothesized mediation model.
p < .05. Research focusing on the effects that leaders have on



p < .10.


p < .01. creative performance of employees suggest that leaders
contribute to employee creativity in multiple ways. First,
concept was coined by Nembhard and Edmondson leaders can serve as role models for creative behaviors
(2006), who focused on leader inclusiveness to indicate (Jaussi & Dionne, 2003). Second, leaders can provide
leader behaviors that invite and appreciate inputs from resources including time, funding, and information
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

others, thus help shaping their team members’ beliefs necessary for the creative endeavor (Reiter-Palmon &
that ‘‘their voices are genuinely valued’’ (p. 948). As Illies, 2004). Third, leaders can invigorate and energize
such, inclusive leadership is at the core of relational their subordinates to be more creative (Atwater &
leadership and focuses on whether followers feel that Carmeli, 2009). Fourth, leaders support creative beha-
leaders are available to them, whether the leader listens vior by providing relational support to followers (Arad,
and is paying attention to the follower needs. Although Hason, & Schnieder, 1997; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen,
researchers have called for further studies on how lea- 1999). Finally, leaders can influence employee creativity
ders shape psychologically safe work environment by shaping the climate of the team or organization
(Edmondson, 2004), only a handful attempts have been (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer, 2004; Arad
made to document this leadership–psychological safety et al., 1997; Mumford & Hunter, 2005).The latter three
linkage (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). aspects, motivation, support, and climate, are of parti-
In this study, we address this call by theorizing and cular interest in the context of relational leadership.
empirically examining how inclusive leadership facili- The relationship between motivation and creativity has
tates psychological safety and augments involvement been documented extensively (Amabile, 1983). Leaders
in creative work task. Specifically, a recent review of can influence the motivation of their subordinates to
the theory and research on leadership and creativity engage in creative performance by setting expectations
has pointed out that ‘‘although an increasing compi- for creative performance (Carmeli & Schaubroeck,
lation of empirical studies has examined leadership for 2007; Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993; Scott &
creativity, to date, this line of inquiry is still in its nas- Bruce, 1994; Tierney & Farmer, 2004), increasing
cent stage’’ (Tierney, 2008, p. 95). Furthermore, research intrinsic motivation and cultivating energy to engage in
evaluating relational leadership and creativity is rare, the creative task (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Shin & Zhou,
and typically does not evaluate the mechanism by which 2003). The focus here is on one’s involvement in creative
relational leadership may influence employee creative work, as this is a precursor to employee creativity.
involvement. This is despite growing interest in the Because creativity is time consuming and effortful, motiv-
social underpinning of creativity in the workplace. This ation plays an important role in creative production.
study contributes to the literature by adding specificity Leader support has been found to consistently relate
to the concept of relational leadership by illuminating to motivation to engage in creative work and display
the importance of leader inclusiveness. creative behaviors. Supportive behavior that has been
In specific, we propose and test a model, shown in linked to creative performance includes high quality
Figure 1, which focuses on inclusive leadership, psycho- leader–member exchange relationships, supporting
logical safety, and employee involvement in creative employee actions or decisions, providing information,
tasks in the workplace. We suggest that inclusive leader- consulting employees, and trust in the leader (Amabile
ship will enhance employee creativity by facilitating the et al., 2004; Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Basu & Green,
development of psychological safety and involvement 1997; George & Zhou, 2007; Oldham & Cummings,
in creative work. Thus, we examine whether (a) inclusive 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney et al., 1999). Finally,
leadership facilitates psychological safety, (b) psycho- a meta-analysis on the relationship between climate and
logical safety is positively associated with employee creativity suggests that positive supervisor relationships,
involvement in creative work tasks, and (c) psychological including noncontrolling supervision and support of
safety mediates the link between inclusive leadership and innovation are linked to employee creativity (Hunter,
employee creative work involvement. Bedell, & Mumford, 2007).
 252 CARMELI, REITER-PALMON, ZIV

This latter point also suggests the importance of openness, availability, and accessibility, they are likely
climate for creativity. In addition to leaders directly to facilitate the development of psychological safety
being included as one of the climate dimensions, leaders among employees at work. Leaders can encourage
can also influence the climate of the workgroup or followers to bring up new ideas and take risks by
organization indirectly by supporting a positive, open, communicating the importance of such behaviors and
and trusting environment. Not surprisingly, positive assuring followers that negative consequences will not
peer relationships, participation, open communication, result from such behavior. Being open, available, and
and trust all appear as important aspects of climate that accessible allows leaders to communicate such
facilitate creativity (Hunter et al., 2007). The review of expectations. When the leader is open and listening to
these studies suggests that leadership should be an employees, willing to discuss new ways for achieving
important consideration when evaluating factors that the work goals, and paying attention to new opportu-
affect creativity in organizations. Further, there is an nities, employees are likely to feel that it is safe to bring
agreement in the literature that supportive behaviors up new ideas and take risks involved in coming up with
or relational leadership facilitates creativity (Amabile ideas that basically defy the norm. In a similar vein,
et al., 2004; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). when leaders are available and accessible to employees,
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

However, despite its importance, understanding of the they send a clear signal that it is safe to approach them
specific leader behaviors that lead creative performance is and that they will be available and accessible to
lacking (Amabile et al., 2004; Mumford et al., 2002). employees attempting to address issues creatively.
Most studies have focused on general patterns of leader Edmondson’s (2004) theory about such aspects of lead-
support (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney et al., ership as openness, availability, and accessibility is also
1999). Only a handful of studies, such as the research consistent with other studies that pointed, for example,
by Amabile and her colleagues (2004), have evaluated to behaviors that signal leader benevolence (e.g., genu-
the specific characteristics or behaviors of leader support ine caring and concern about the follower) and leader
that may enhance creativity. Furthermore, there are mul- support, increase trust (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Sales,
tiple mechanisms by which leader behavior can influence 2007). Further, high-quality interpersonal relationships
creativity, and more studies are needed to understand the have been shown to facilitate the development of psycho-
ways leaders cultivate conditions for enhancing employee logical safety (Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009; Carmeli
creativity, and thus how different mediating variables & Gittell, 2009). Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) found
relate to different leader behaviors. Consistent with this that when members felt that their leaders invited and
line of research, our study draws on the concept of rela- appreciated their input, they developed a sense of psycho-
tional leadership and examines how inclusive leadership logical safety, in that their voice is appreciated and they are
influences creativity specifically through the development comfortable with speaking up and expressing themselves.
of perceptions of psychological safety and the link to Thus, we suggest the following hypothesis:
employee willingness to exert effort and be involved in
behaviors that lead to creative production. Hypothesis 1: Inclusive leadership will be positively
related to psychological safety.

Inclusive Leadership and Psychological Safety

Psychological safety refers to individuals’ perceptions of
Psychological Safety and Employee Creativity
the consequences of taking interpersonal risks in their work
environment (Edmondson, 1999, 2004; Kahn, 1990). As Consistent with Amabile’s (1983) definition, employee
such, it describes a perception that ‘‘people are comfortable creativity is referred to as the production of ideas, pro-
being themselves’’ (Edmondson, 1999, p. 354) and ‘‘feel ducts, or procedures that are novel or original, and
able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative potentially useful to the employing organization. As
consequences to self-image, status, or career’’ (Kahn, 1990, such, creativity is a process of idea generation, problem
p. 708). However, Edmondson (2004) suggested that psy- solving, and the actual idea or solution (Amabile, 1983;
chological safety is distinct from trust. Psychological safety Sternberg, 1988; Weisberg, 1988). Creativity tends to be
focuses on the self, whereas in trust the focus is the other. a risky endeavor. Creativity, by nature, introduces
Another difference is that psychological safety pertains to novelty and increases uncertainty. Creative ideas,
a narrow and short time frame, whereas trust encompasses because they are novel, are more likely to fail. It is,
a wide temporal range (Edmondson, 2004). therefore, not surprising that one of the most consistent
Research suggests that leader behaviors contribute findings regarding creative individuals is that they are
to the feelings of psychological safety (Edmondson, open, flexible, and willing to take risks (Barron &
1996; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Specifically, Harrington, 1981; Dewett, 2006; Feist, 1998; Sternberg
Edmondson (2004) suggested that when leaders exhibit & Lubart, 1991). Similarly, research on individual
 LEADERSHIP, EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT, AND CREATIVITY 253

creativity in organizational settings finds that proactive including factors such as leader appreciation and support
behavior and initiative are related to creativity and for new ideas and innovation and leader support through
innovation (Rank, Pace & Frese, 2004; Seibert, Kraimer resources, and did not distinguish between the different
& Crant, 2001). Further, Rank et al. suggested that aspects of support (George & Zhou, 2007; Mumford &
voice behavior, that is, speaking up and having willing- Hunter, 2005). Research on the effect of supportive lead-
ness to question and provide suggestions for change, is ership, focusing more specifically on the relationship
the link between creativity, or the generation of new between the leader and the follower suggests that overall
ideas, and innovation, or the implementation of these support is beneficial for creativity (Arad et al., 1997;
ideas. Binnewies, Ohly, and Sonnetag (2007) found that George & Zhou, 2007; Oldham & Cummings, 1996).
initiative and idea related communication increased Further, some research has pointed to the role of lead-
employee creative engagement. ership in shaping conditions that are conductive for
Voice behavior, initiative, and proactive behavior are enhancing employee creativity. For example, George
more likely to occur when individuals feel safe psychologi- and Zhou (2007) conducted a study that evaluated the
cally (Edmondson, 2004). This belief motivates and process by which leader support leads to creativity and
enhances willing to engage in these behaviors. When indi- innovation. Specifically, they evaluated three behavioral
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

viduals are comfortable to voice and speak up, they are mechanisms by which supervisors can provide a support-
more likely to make ‘‘innovative suggestions for change ive context—developmental feedback, displaying inter-
and recommending modifications to standard procedures actional justice, and being trustworthy. The results of
even when others disagree’’ (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998, p. their study suggest that all three types of behavioral
109). In a review of the literature on organizational crea- support lead to increased creativity. Mumford et al.
tivity, George (2008) suggested that signals for safety are (2002) noted that leaders who provide support for
one of the most important contextual variables related creativity (idea, work, and social supports) are more
to creativity. West and Richter (2008) and Nicholson effective in facilitating creativity because they are able
and West (1988) noted that when facing psychological to shape and maintain work contexts that are vital for
threats and feeling psychologically unsafe, individuals motivating individuals to display creative behaviors.
are more likely to develop defensive orientation and are Lee, Edmondson, Thomke, and Worline (2004) have also
less likely to display creativity and innovative behaviors noted that leader supportive coaching enables interper-
at work. Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, and Kendall (2006) sonal risk taking (Edmondson, 1999, 2002), although
found that psychological safety increases the likelihood close evaluation processes intended to unravel failures
that team members will feel free to question suggestions inhibit creativity (Amabile et al., 2004) and make new
and decisions. Work focusing on climate factors that tasks more difficult (Zajonc, 1965). Lee et al. (2004)
facilitate creativity consistently includes aspects of underscores the importance of joint supportive
psychological safety (Amabile & Grykiewicz, 1989; conditions that make people psychologically safe, thus
Ekvall, 1986; Hunter et al., 2007). The willingness to ques- facilitating their willingness to engage in experimentation,
tion, raise novel ideas, and provide new suggestions are all a behavior integral to creative and innovative endeavor.
important manifestations of an employee involvement in In addition, consistent with previous research, we
creative work task. We suggest that when employees feel reason that psychological safety is developed through rela-
that they are psychologically safe to speak up, seek help tional leadership and serves as a key social-psychological
from others, and express themselves without fearing of mechanism by which people are able to display creativity
negative interpersonal consequences, they are more likely without experiencing interpersonal threats and developing
to develop a high degree of involvement in creative endea- defensive orientation (Carmeli et al., 2009; Edmondson,
vors that are ultimately important for employee creative 2004). Along with this line of research (see also, De Dreu
performance. Thus, the following hypothesis is suggested: & West, 2001), we posit that the relationship between lea-
der inclusiveness and creativity will be mediated through
Hypothesis 2: Psychological safety will be positively psychological safety. Inclusive leaders who are open, avail-
related to employee involvement in creative work task. able, and accessible to employees who come up with new
ideas cultivate a context in which people feel psychologi-
cally safe to voice and express new ideas that often defy
the norms. Psychological safety, in turn, is likely to result
Inclusive Leadership, Psychological Safety, and
in a higher level of employee involvement in creative work.
Employee Involvement in Creative Tasks
Hence, the following hypothesis is suggested:
Past research has suggested that leader support is impor-
tant to creativity and innovation (Hunter et al., 2007; Hypothesis 3: Psychological safety will mediate the
Mumford & Hunter, 2005). However, most research on relationship between inclusive leadership and employee
leader support has focused on overall leader support, involvement in creative work task.
 254 CARMELI, REITER-PALMON, ZIV

METHOD dimensions or more than one dimension was removed.

Respondents were asked to assess on a five-point scale
Sample and Procedure (ranging from 1 ¼ not at all to 5 ¼ to a large extent) the
extent to which their leader displays openness and is
One hundred and eighty employees, who engage in the
available and accessible for them at work. Results of
development of advanced technological products, were
factor analyses produced a one-factor solution had an
randomly selected to participate in the study. They were
eigenvalue of 6.18 and explained 68.74% of the variance.
employed in the R&D units of 8 knowledge-intensive
It had factor loadings ranging from .51 to .82. The
organizations that develop advanced technological
Cronbach alpha for this measure was .94.
products. Every third, sixth, ninth (and so on) employee
was contacted and asked to complete a structured
survey at two points in time, with a lag of 2 months Psychological safety. This measure assesses the
between Time 1 and Time 2. The questionnaires were extent to which a member in an organization feels
completed by the respondents on-site, during scheduled psychologically safe to take risks, speak up, and discuss
work time sessions. We initially contacted the Human issues openly. Following the results of a factor analysis,
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

Resource Department Director and discussed our we adopted five items from Edmondson’s (1999) psycho-
research goals and scope. In exchange for cooperation, logical safety scale. Responses were made on a five-point
we promised to deliver the results of the study upon scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a large extent).
request. One of the authors attended the work sites, The Cronbach alpha for this measure was .74.
briefly presented the subject of the study, and handed
out the questionnaires. The average time for completing
this questionnaire was about 10 min. To correlate the Employee involvement in creative work. We used
same respondent’s completed questionnaires from four items of the employee creativity developed and used
Time 1 and Time 2, and to preserve the respondent’s by Tierney, Farmer and Graen (1999) and further imple-
anonymity, employees were asked to indicate the names mented in other studies that examined the degree to
of their maternal grandparents. We explained that the which one is involved in creative work tasks (Carmeli
maternal grandparents’ names were needed to allow us & Schaubroeck, 2007). Respondents were asked to indi-
to follow up with the additional survey 2 months later. cate the extent to which they regularly exhibit various
The questionnaire at Time 1 included items measuring behaviors that are indicative of creative work involve-
inclusive leadership and data about control variables, ment. Responses were made on a five-point scale
whereas the survey at Time 2 included items measuring ranging from ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a large
psychological safety and employee involvement in extent). The Cronbach alpha for this measure was .89.
creative work tasks.
One hundred and fifty employees completed the
Control variables. We controlled for tenure in the
two surveys, representing a response rate of 83%.
organization, as this reflects work domain expertise
Ninety-two of the respondents were women. Sixty-four
(Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Tierney & Farmer, 2004).
percent were married. The respondents’ average age
In addition, we controlled for respondents’ age because
was 32.27 years (SD ¼ 7.11), and their average tenure
younger employees may be more inclined to take risks
within the organization was 3.69 years (SD ¼ 5.07).
and engage in creative endeavors than older employees.
Twenty-seven percent of the participants held a high
school diploma or equivalent, 44.7% held a Bachelor’s
degree, 25.3% held an MA degree, and the remainder Data Analyses
of the participants held a PhD degree.
We used SEM (Bollen, 1989) to estimate the research
model. As outlined by Anderson and Gerbing (1988),
Measures we employed a two-step approach to SEM in which con-
struct validity was assessed using confirmatory factor
All measurement items are shown in Appendix A.
analysis, followed by a comparison of a sequence of
nested structural models. To alleviate problems associa-
Inclusive leadership. We constructed a 9-item ted with using a single goodness-of-fit index in SEM
measure aiming at assessing three dimensions of inclusive (Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994), we used several
leaders: openness, availability, and accessibility. We first goodness-of-fit indexes in assessing the fit of the research
asked 10 employees and 15 graduate students to carefully model (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Kline, 1998). These
read each statement and indicate the extent to which each fit indexes include the chi-square statistic divided by
item reflects the construct it aimed to constitute. the degrees of freedom (v2=df); a Comparative Fit Index
Each item that was specified as reflecting none of the (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI), and the Root
 LEADERSHIP, EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT, AND CREATIVITY 255

Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). As of this model was relatively poor, and significantly
suggested in the literature (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; worse than our proposed three-factor model, v2(136) ¼
Kline, 1998), the following criteria of goodness-of-fit 409.8; CFI ¼ .84; IFI ¼ .84; TLI ¼ .82; RMSEA ¼ .11;
indexes were used to assess the model fit: the v2=df ratio Dv2(1) ¼ 120, p < .01. Finally, we also tested a one-factor
is recommended to be less than 3; the values of CFI, and model (Herman one-factor test for common method
TLI are recommended to be greater than .90; RMSEA is bias) where all items measuring inclusive leadership,
recommended to be up to .05, and acceptable up to .08. psychological safety, and employee involvement in
creative work were loaded onto a single factor. The fit
of this model was relatively poor, and significantly
RESULTS worse than our proposed three-factor model, v2(137) ¼
781.8; CFI ¼ .62; IFI ¼ .62; TLI ¼ .58; RMSEA ¼ .17;
The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and corre- Dv2(2) ¼ 492, p < .01. In sum, the hypothesized three-
lations among the research variables are presented in factor measurement model had better fit with the data,
Table 1. The bivariate correlations indicate that inclus- compared to the alternative (two-factor and one-factor)
ive leadership is positively related to both psychological models. In the following section, we test our hypothe-
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

safety (r ¼ .39, p < .01) and employee involvement in sized research model and hypotheses.
creative work (r ¼ .25, p < .01). The results also show In addition, differences between organizations on the
that psychological safety was positively associated with variables of interest were examined using ANOVA. As
employee involvement in creative work (r ¼ .34, p < .01). no significant differences were found, the analyses were
conducted across all organizations.

Preliminary Analyses
Model Comparisons and Hypothesis Tests
We first sought to show further evidence of the construct
validity of our latent factors using confirmatory factor To review, we proposed a mediated model whereby the
analysis (CFA). The hypothesized three-factor measure- relationship between inclusive leadership and employee
ment model was tested to assess whether each of the involvement in creative work is mediated by psychologi-
measurement items would load significantly onto the cal safety. Because traditional guidelines for testing
scales with which they were associated. The results of mediation (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986; Kenny, Kashy,
the overall CFA showed acceptable fit with the data, & Bolger, 1998) are not as suitable for SEM applications,
v2(135) ¼ 289.8; CFI ¼ .91; IFI ¼ .91; TLI ¼ .90; we tested the hypothesized mediating relationship
RMSEA ¼ .08. Standardized coefficients from items to through a series of nested model comparisons, as recom-
factors ranged from .47 to .98. In addition, the CFA mended by others (see James, Mulaik, & Brett, 2006;
indicated that the relationship between each indicator Schneider, Earhart, Mayer, Saltz, & Miles-Jolly, 2005).
variable and its respective construct was significant Testing meditation model using SEM has several advan-
(p < .01), establishing the posited relationships among tages over hierarchical regression approaches with
indicators and constructs, and thus, convergent validity regard to the testing of mediation (Cheung & Lau,
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). We com- 2008). SEM is a better statistical tool for investigating
pared the fit of our measurement model to a two-factor latent variables with multiple indicators (Holmbeck,
where inclusive leadership and psychological safety 1997), controlling for measurement error, and thus
items loaded onto one factor and employee involvement avoiding underestimation of mediation effects (Hoyle
in creative work was loaded onto a second factor. The fit & Smith, 1994), allowing for the analysis of more com-
plex models (Hoyle & Smith, 1994), and for specifying
all relevant paths (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
TABLE 1 We first tested our hypothesized mediation model,
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations specifying the role of psychological safety (PS) as a
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 mediator for the relationship between inclusive leadership
(IL) and employee involvement in creative work (EC; i.e.,
1. Respondent age 32.27 7.11 — IL ! PS ! EC). Additional paths from control variables
2. Organizational tenure 3.70 5.08 .55

—
3. Inclusive leadership 3.84 0.86 .06 .16
(.94)
(respondent age and tenure in the organization) to
4. Psychological safety 3.31 0.68 .02 .01 .39

(.74) employee involvement in creative work were also speci-
5. Employee involvement 3.52 0.82 .05 .00 .25

.34

(.89) fied in this model. Results, shown in Table 2, indicated
in creative work that the model fit the data well data, v2(135) ¼ 289.8;
Note. N ¼ 150, two-tailed test. Alpha reliabilities appear in CFI ¼ .91; IFI ¼ .91; TLI ¼ .90; RMSEA ¼ .08).
parentheses. To test for mediation, we compared the fit and path


p < .05.

p < .01. coefficients of the hypothesized mediation model with a
 256 CARMELI, REITER-PALMON, ZIV

TABLE 2 organizations often depends on employees who produce

Testing the Mediation Model: Comparisons and Path Coefficient of novel and useful ideas that enable an organization to
Structural Equation Models
cope with emerging issues, remain competitive, or
Hypothesized Model Model 1 revolutionize an industry. In this article, we sought to
contribute to both literatures on leadership and creativ-
IL ! PS .47

IL ! PS .47


ity by understanding the role of a specific form of
PS ! EC .43


PS ! EC .38


Age ! EC .08 (p ¼ .37) IL ! EC .08 relational leadership, inclusive leadership, and the mech-
Tenure ! EC .02 (p ¼ .83) Age ! EC .09 (p ¼ .35) anism by which it facilitates employee creativity in the
Tenure ! EC .03 (p ¼ .73) workplace through a focus on employee involvement
v2 301.6 301 in creative work.
Df 167 166
Specifically, our study attempts to extend prior
Dv2 .6, ns
RMSEA .074 .074 research on the role of leadership in facilitating employee
CFI .925 .924 creativity by proposing and testing a mediation model
TLI .914 .913 that examines the relationship between inclusive leader-
IFI .926 .925 ship, psychological safety, and employee involvement
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

Note. IL ¼ Inclusive Leadership; PS ¼ Psychological Safety; in creative work. Using a sample of 150 employees, we
EC ¼ Employee involvement in creative work. In all models the control investigated the relationship between inclusive leadership
variables (respondent age and tenure in the organization) were linked (measured at Time 1), psychological safety, and
to employee involvement in creative work. employee involvement in creative work (both measured


p < .05.

p < .01.
at Time 2). The results of SEM indicate that inclusive
leadership was positively linked to psychological safety,
second model (Model 1) that was identical to our which, in turn, resulted in enhanced employee involve-
hypothesized model, except for the addition of direct ment in creative work, thus suggesting that psychological
effect path from IL to EC. As is shown in Table 2, safety plays an intervening role in the relationship
although all paths from IL to PS and from PS to EC between inclusive leadership and employee creativity.
remained significant (.47, p < .01; .38, p < .01, respect- In so doing, this study makes several contributions to
ively), the direct path from IL to EC was not (.08, theory and research on both leadership and creativity.
p ¼ .41). Following Holmbeck (1997), we see from the Our research addresses the call to direct further
results of the Dv2 difference test that the addition of attention to the role of relational leadership in work
the direct effect path does not significantly improve organizations (Fletcher, 2004, 2007; Uhl-Bien, 2006).
model fit. Thus, the results show support for our We proposed and investigated a specific form of rela-
hypothesized mediation model, which is depicted in tional leadership, inclusive leadership, which includes
Figure 1, and the research hypotheses. The results of three reinforcing facets: openness, accessibility, and
the hypothesized mediation model are in support of availability. This study extends our understanding of
hypothesis 1, which posited a positive relationship relational leadership by focusing not on a broad con-
between inclusive leadership and psychological safety struct such as leader support, but rather on a specific
(.47, p < .01). In addition, hypothesis 2, which predicted aspect of relational leadership and leader support,
a positive relationship between psychological safety and that of inclusive leadership. In addition, this form of
employee involvement in creative work, was also sup- leadership and its facets have been suggested to have
ported (.38, p < .01). Finally, the findings also support the potential to give rise to psychological safety
hypothesis 3, which posited that psychological safety (Edmondson, 2004).
would mediate the relationship between inclusive leader- The findings of this study provide further support to
ship and employee involvement in creative work, as the the importance of leader inclusiveness in the develop-
paths from inclusive leadership and psychological safety ment of psychological safety (Nembhard & Edmondson,
as well as from psychological safety and employee 2006). Our work expands the research of Edmondson
involvement in creative work remained significant, yet and her colleagues (Edmondson, 1999, 2004; Nembhard
the path from inclusive leadership to employee involve- & Edmondson, 2006), by focusing on a specific aspect of
ment in creative work was not statistically significant relational leadership and its effect on psychological
(see Table 2). safety. In addition, this study sheds light on the role of
psychological safety in enhancing creativity in the work-
place. Specifically, our study indicates that when leaders
DISCUSSION are open, accessible, and available to discuss new ideas
with employees, they cultivate a social context in which
Research on the ways leaders may foster employee people feel that they are psychologically safe to voice,
creativity is vital because the competitive advantage of speak up, and come up with novel and useful solutions.
 LEADERSHIP, EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT, AND CREATIVITY 257

This provides further support to the importance of the variables may be vital for explaining employee creativity
social context that is conducive for employee creativity in the workplace. Thus, unobserved variables may limit
(Illies & Reiter-Palmon, 2004; Perry-Smith, 2006). Fur- the implications of our study. Future research may
thermore, we expand previous research that pointed to integrate complementary theories and explanations of
psychological conditions that foster personal engage- employee creativity at work. For instance, whereas we
ment in particular work task (Kahn, 1990) by exploring advocate the importance of relational leadership in
the importance of psychological safety in facilitating facilitating such conditions as psychological safety for
employee involvement in creative work tasks. enhancing employee creativity, cognitive capacities and
Our research also addressed calls to extend our knowl- job characteristics may also foster creative behaviors.
edge about leadership and creativity (Mumford et al., In addition, it is possible that leader inclusiveness
2002; Tierney, 2008). By illuminating inclusive leadership may influence positive affect toward the leader or cre-
as a form of relational leadership, this study adds to the ative self-efficacy. It is thus of importance to seek ways
understanding of the nature of leadership processes that to develop a more integrative approach for understand-
contribute to employee involvement in creative work ing how employee creativity is fostered by inclusive
tasks. Further, we extend our understanding of the ways leadership.
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

leadership support facilitates creativity through the Third, the study used self-reports to assess the vari-
development of psychological safety. Specifically, our ables that may be associated with common method bias;
study indicates that inclusiveness is key in providing specifically, the variables measured here all asked for
leadership support for creativity, because it cultivates employee perceptions. In a recent work about relying
high quality relationships that further augment a sense on self-report data, Chan (2009) pointed out that scho-
of psychological safety. The latter is a vital social- lars tend to believe that such data have little validity
psychological mechanism which creates conditions where ‘‘because of two related assumptions namely, (1) they
individuals feel safe to bring up ideas, voice opinions, are inherently flawed as measures of the intended
and to question (Edmondson, 2004). All these behaviors constructs and (2) they are unable to provide accurate
have been found to be related to increased creativity in parameter estimates of inter-construct relationships’’
the workplace (Edmondson, 2004). (p. 337). However, Chan (2009) also pointed to the fact
The role of leadership in facilitating creativity is that many of the alleged problems associated with
particularly important in knowledge intensive, complex, self-reports ‘‘are overstated or exaggerations’’ (p. 337).
and uncertain environments similar to the one used in Nevertheless, in an attempt to alleviate problems asso-
this study (Mumford et al., 2002). In those environ- ciated with self-report data, we followed Podsakoff,
ments, a firm’s competitive edge is largely dependent MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff’s (2003, p. 887) sug-
on the creative employees who can come up with novel gested remedy ‘‘to separate the measurement of the pre-
and useful ideas that are vital for the development of dictor and criterion variables.’’ Thus, we administered
advanced technological products. Because in such a set- surveys at two points in time. In addition, we assessed
ting demands are often overwhelming and time is scarce, the effects of common method bias using confirmatory
it becomes a challenge for managers to develop a high factor analyses of three models. This model is expected
level of inclusiveness by being open, accessible, and to assess the extent of common method variance overall.
available to talk and discuss creative ideas of employees. As mentioned previously, the results of the one-factor
In addition, employee motivation to engage in creative model (i.e., Harman one-factor test) did not fit the data
behaviors becomes paramount, and thus this study con- well, whereas the hypothesized three-factor model had a
tributes to the literature by documenting the importance good fit with the data. In addition, a confirmatory factor
of inclusive leadership for facilitating employee psycho- analysis of a two-factor model where items measuring
logical safety and involvement in creative work tasks. both psychological safety and employee creativity
(measured at Time 2) had a better fit with the data com-
pared to a one-factor structure. Although this set of
Limitations and Future Research Directions
analyses provide some indication that the common
In interpreting the results of this study, it is important to method variance may not be a severe problem in our
keep several issues in mind. First, although we collected study, we acknowledge that one cannot fully determine
data at two points in time, it is difficult to infer cause– the magnitude, and thus a longitudinal study and use
effect relationships in our study. Although we provided of different sources of data are desirable.
sound theoretical reasoning for our model, future Finally, we examined employee perceptions of creativ-
research should pursue a longitudinal design to allow ity, as a measure of involvement in creative production.
for stronger causal interpretations of our model. Second, Zhou, Shin, and Cannella (2008) noted that ‘‘there is
although we focused on relational leadership and significant theoretical merit to studying employees’
psychological safety, we recognize that other unobserved self-perceived creativity’’ (p. 399). This is consistent with
 258 CARMELI, REITER-PALMON, ZIV

recent studies that employ self-perceptions of creativity Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator
(e.g., Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). Creativity is often variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
a self-awareness process, intentional in nature. It may Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
well be that these creative behaviors are not observed Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and
by others and thus creating misalignment in the way an personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.
individual perceive his or her creativity and the ways Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader–member exchange and trans-
others perceive his or her creative behavior (Zhou et al., formational leadership: An empirical examination of innovative
behaviors in leader–member dyads. Journal of Applied Social
2008). Yet, ‘‘because engaging in creative activities starts Psychology, 27, 477–499.
with individuals’ conscious choice (Ford, 1996) and Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Taking personal
because it is accompanied by subjective experiences initiative and communicating about ideas: What is important for
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), understanding individuals’ the creative process and for idea creativity? European Journal of
self-perceptions and subjective experiences of their crea- Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 432–455.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.
tivity is the first step toward understanding the entire New York: Wiley.
process of creativity’’ (Zhou et al., 2008, pp. 399–400). Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in
Nonetheless, we acknowledge the need to use multiple leadership: A multi-level review and integration. Leadership
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

referents for assessing employee creativity, including Quarterly, 18, 606–632.

direct managers, peers, and customers. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006).
Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189–1207.
Carmeli, A., Ben-Hador, B., Waldman, D. A., & Rupp, D. E. (2009).
Conclusions How leaders cultivate social capital and nurture employee vigor:
This study provides an important step toward under- Implications for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94, 1553–1561.
standing a relatively understudied form of leadership, Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviors
relational leadership, and its potential to contribute to in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relation-
creativity in the workplace. This study provides ships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral
additional support for the role that relational leadership Science, 26, 81–98.
plays in enhancing employee creativity, but furthers our Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High-quality relationships,
psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organiza-
understating in two areas. First, this study evaluates a tions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 709–729.
specific form of relational leadership, inclusive leadership. Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’ and
Second, this study investigated the mechanism by which other referents’ normative expectations on individual involvement
relational leadership, and specifically inclusive leadership, in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35–48.
may facilitate employee creativity. The findings of the Chan, D. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad?
In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodo-
study that inclusive leadership, characterized by open- logical myths and urban legends: Received doctrine, verity, and fable
ness, accessibility, and availability, increases psychologi- in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 311–338). New York:
cal safety, which, in turn, increases employee creativity, Routledge.
lend support to the importance of these constructs in Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and sup-
understanding the link between leadership and creativity. pression effects of latent variables bootstrapping with structural
equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296–325.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: HarperCollins.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. (2001). Minority dissent and team
REFERENCES innovation: The importance of participation in decision making.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Dewett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity.
Springer-Verlag. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 27–45.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environ- Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than
ment scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity Research done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and cor-
Journal, 2, 231–253. rection of human error. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 5–28.
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in
(2004). Leader behaviors and work environment for creativity: work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.
Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32. Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation model- in organizations: A group level perspective. Organization Science,
ing in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. 13, 128–146.
Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in
Arad, S., Hanson, M. A., & Schnieder, R. J. (1997). A framework for organizations: A group-level lens. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook
the study of relationship between organizational characteristics and (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches
organizational innovation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 42–58. (pp. 239–272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings Ekvall, G. (1986). Working climate and creativity: A study of an
of energy and involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, innovative newspaper office. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20,
20, 264–275. 215–225.
 LEADERSHIP, EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT, AND CREATIVITY 259

Feist, G. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams.
creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941–966.
Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay Nicholson, N., & West, M. A. (1988). Managerial job change: Men
on gender, power, and transformational change. Leadership Quar- and women in transition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
terly, 15, 647–661. Press.
Fletcher, J. K. (2007). Leadership, power, and positive relationships. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal
In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relation- and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal,
ships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation 39, 607–634.
(347–371). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rank, J., Pace, V. L., & Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future
Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psy-
social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1112–1142. chology; An International Review, 53, 518–528.
George, J. M. (2008). Creativity in organizations. Academy of Manage- Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting
ment Annals, 1, 439–477. creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervis- 55, 120–151.
ory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity:
Journal, 50, 605–622. Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving perspec-
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader– tive. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 55–77.
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

member exchange theory: Correlated and construct issues. Journal Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., &
of Applied Psychology, 82, 827–844. Miles-Jolly, K. (2005). Understanding organization–customer
Hair, J. F, Anderson, P. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). links in service settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48,
Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1017–1032.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and stat- Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative
istical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace.
from the child–clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proac-
Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research tive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality
hypotheses as structural equation models: A conceptual overview. and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 429–440. Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leadership need to know:
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder
creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53.
69–90. Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conser-
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two vation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Manage-
methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244. ment Journal, 46, 703–714.
Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. (2003). Leading for creativity: The role of Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary
unconventional leader behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 475–498. Psychological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of
validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1–31.
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51. Tierney, P. (2008). Leadership and employee creativity. In J. Zhou &
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp.
modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific 95–123). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
International Software. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30, 413–432.
and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of
692–724. leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social relations. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620.
psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the
of social psychology (pp. 233–265). New York: McGraw-Hill. social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly,
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation 17, 654–676.
modeling. New York: Guilford. Weisberg, R. W. (1988). Problem solving and creativity. In R. J.
Lee, F., Edmondson, A. C., Thomke, S., & Worline, M. (2004). The Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychologi-
mixed effects of inconsistency on experimentation in organizations. cal perspectives. (pp. 148–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Organization Science, 15, 310–326. Press.
Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. (1994). A review of West, M. A., & Richter, A. W. (2008). Climates and cultures for inno-
current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational vation and creativity at work. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.),
behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 211–236). New York:
Management, 20, 439–464. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a
Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750. Review, 18, 293–321.
Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.
A multi-level perspective on creativity. Multi-Level Issues in Strat- Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., & Cannella, A. A. (2008). Employee self-perceived
egy and Methods, 4, 11–73. creativity after mergers and acquisitions: Interactive effects of
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: threat–opportunity perception, access to resources, and support
The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on for creativity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 397–421.
 260 CARMELI, REITER-PALMON, ZIV

APPENDIX A
Items Used to Measure the Study Variables

Items measuring Inclusive Leadership (a ¼ .94)

The manager is open to hearing new ideas (openness)
The manager is attentive to new opportunities to improve work processes (openness)
The manager is open to discuss the desired goals and new ways to achieve them (openness)
The manager is available for consultation on problems (availability)
The manager is an ongoing ‘presence’ in this team—someone who is readily available (availability)
The manager is available for professional questions I would like to consult with him=her (availability)
The manager is ready to listen to my requests (availability)
The manager encourages me to access him=her on emerging issues (accessibility)
The manager is accessible for discussing emerging problems (accessibility)
Items measuring Psychological Safety (a ¼ .76)a
I am able to bring up problems and tough issues
People in this organization sometimes reject others for being different
It is safe to take a risk in this organization
It is easy for me to ask other members of this organization for help
Downloaded by [Washington University in St Louis] at 14:55 29 December 2014

No one in this organization would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts
Items measuring Employee Involvement in Creative Work (a ¼ .89)b
Demonstrate originality at my work
Try out new ideas and approached to problems
Identify opportunities for new products=processes
Generate novel but operable work-related ideas
a
Source: Edmonson, 1999. bSource: Tierney et al.