The effect of work locus of control on the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement.

The effect of work locus of control on the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement. Master thesis F. (Fleur) de Laat 562582 Supervisor: Marloes van Engen Second reviewer: Brigitte Kroon July 8 th, 2016

Abstract Inclusive leadership is a relatively new concept in the HR field. Often, leadership concepts focus on the qualities of the leader. Inclusive leadership distinguishes itself from these concepts by including an active role of the follower in constructing the leadership relationship. Inclusive leadership has already shown to have a positive influence on organizational outcomes. This study elaborates on the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement on the basis of the social exchange theory and the optimal distinctiveness theory. This relationship is likely to vary depending on certain individual factors. Therefore, the personal trait work locus of control is taken into account. The research question of this study is: To what extent does inclusive leadership have an influence on work engagement and does this relationship differ for employees with a different work locus of control? The data gathered to examine this question was partly cross-sectional and partly longitudinal via a questionnaire with a total of N=323 respondents. The expectation that inclusive leadership influences work engagement was supported by the results of this study. However, the suggestion that inclusive leadership has a stronger effect on followers with an internal locus of control than followers with an external locus of control regarding work engagement was not confirmed by the results. An unexpected outcome of this study was a direct effect of inclusive leadership on work engagement, a direct effect of internal work locus of control on work engagement, and an indirect effect of inclusive leadership via internal work locus of control on work engagement. Limitations and practical implications of this study are discussed in the discussion section. Keywords: Inclusive leadership, work engagement, work locus of control, social exchange theory, optimal distinctiveness theory 2

Introduction Work engagement is a concept that is opposite to burnout (Schaufeli, Taris, & Rhenen, 2008). Nowadays, about 14% of the Dutch workforce experiences burnout complaints and this number is increasing every year (CBS, 2015). Therefore, it is important for organizations to invest in their workforce becoming more engaged. To create an engaged workforce it is important to study what factors could increase work engagement. One of the most important antecedents is the style of leadership. Bakker, Albrecht, and Leiter (2011) found that leadership is a major factor that influences work engagement. A leaders behaviour affects motivation and satisfaction among followers but also creates an environment where work engagement is supported (Bakker, Albrecht & Leiter, 2011). Engaged employees are happy, excited and active people that believe in themselves (Schaufeli & Salanove, 2007). They generate their own positive feedback, are sometimes tired, but satisfied (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Salanova, Agut, and Peiro (2005) state that work engagement is characterised by vigor (high levels of energy, willingness to invest effort, and persistence in the face of difficulties), dedication (sense of pride, enthusiasm, inspiration, and challenge), and absorption (time passes by quickly and having difficulties to detach). Job variety, job autonomy, and job responsibility are antecedents of an employees work engagement (Schaufeli & Salanove, 2007). To a large extend, these aspects are determined by their leader. Hollander (2009) found that inclusive leaders stimulate their followers to expand the use of their skills, autonomy, and responsibility. Inclusive leadership is reciprocal relationship between a leader and a follower (Hollander, 2012). An inclusive leader is open, accessible and available towards his or her followers (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010). The concept inclusive leadership is relatively new to the research field. Often, leadership concepts focus on the qualities of the leader. Inclusive leadership distinguishes itself from these concepts by including an active role of the follower in constructing the leadership relationship (Hollander, 2012). What is found so far are positive relations between inclusive leadership and positive organizational outcomes (Hollander, 2012). All in all, a positive relation between inclusive leadership and work engagement is expected. Zhu, Avolio, and Walumbwa (2009) found that follower characteristics moderate the positive relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement. More specifically, Runyon (1973) found a moderating effect of locus on control on the relation between supervisory style and how satisfied followers are with their supervisor. Spector (1988) introduced an individual factor that is specified to the work domain: work locus of 3

control (WLC). This is a factor which to a large extend determines the way employees interpret work related situations they encounter (Rotter, 1966). Therefore, in addition to the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement, the moderating effect of WLC will be investigated. Rotter (1966) states that locus of control refers to peoples generalized control beliefs which can be divided in internal locus of control (people who think that their behaviour can influence their environment) and external locus of control (people who think their environment influences them). Although locus of control in general is studied many times before, limited research has investigated work locus of control. Internals have less need for stimulation and guidance of their leader than externals (Ng, Sorensen & Eby, 2006). In addition, internals are more satisfied with a participative supervisory style, which is related to inclusive leadership, than a directive supervisory style which is characterized among other things by stimulation and guidance (Runyon, 1973). Therefore, it can be assumed that internals are more satisfied with an inclusive leadership style than externals, and will ultimately lead to more work engagement among internals than externals. All this leads to the following research question: To what extent does inclusive leadership have an influence on work engagement and does this relationship differ for employees with a different work locus of control? In the theoretical framework, the variables inclusive leadership, work engagement, and their relation will be explained. Furthermore, there will be an explanation about how the social exchange theory and the optimal distinctiveness theory are relevant and empirical research is provided to enhance this relationship. Moreover, how WLC strengthens the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement will be enlightened and explained. Data was gathered, partly longitudinal and partly cross-sectional, to check whether the theoretical hypotheses of this study are supported by the data. The findings will be enlightened in the discussion part. Theoretical framework Inclusive leadership and work engagement The concept inclusive leadership which is becoming more and more popular, and its relation to work engagement will be elaborated on in the following section. According to Hollander (2012) the essence of inclusion is doing things with people, rather than to people. This reciprocal relationship depends on respect, recognition, responsiveness, and 4

responsibility (Hollander, 2012). Included followers feel that they are valued members and have a sense of belonging to the team (Shore, Rendal, Chung, Dean Ehrhart & Singh, 2010). Often, leadership concepts focus on the qualities of the leader. Inclusive leadership distinguishes itself from these concepts by including an active role of the follower in constructing the leadership relationship. Inclusive leadership is oriented more toward the involvement of the follower rather than to the manipulation of followers by those in power (Hollander, 2012). According to Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, and Ziv (2010) inclusive leadership can be divided in three dimensions namely openness, accessibility and availability. An open leader is willing to listen to and discuss new ways of achieving goals. Available and accessible leaders signal employees that they are approachable and that issues can be addressed (Carmeli et al. 2010). Choi, Tran and Park (2015) emphasize open communication and being supportive towards followers creates an environment where followers give input. Leadership is a major factor that influences work engagement (Bakker, Albrecht & Leiter, 2011). A leader s behaviour affects motivation and satisfaction among followers but also creates an environment where work engagement is supported (Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011). To clarify the relation between inclusive leadership and work engagement it is important to outline the antecedents of work engagement. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) describe work engagement as a motivational construct that is identified by the state of mind of an employee. In case of work engagement the state of mind is positive, fulfilling, and work related and this is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. The vigor aspect refers to a high energy level and mental resilience during work, an employee is willing to put effort in their work and staying persistence when thinks get difficult (Salanova, Agut, & Peiro, 2005). Dedication is characterized by sense of significance, inspiration, pride, enthusiasm, and challenge at work (Salanova et al. 2005). The last aspect, absorption, contains full concentration, happiness, and engrossment in ones work. One finds it hard to detach oneself from their work and time passes quickly (Salanova et al. 2005). Schaufeli and Salanove (2007) state that job variety, job autonomy, and responsibility are antecedents of an employees work engagement. To a large extend, these aspects are determined by their leader (Hollander, 2012). A theory that supports the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement is the social exchange theory. This theory is the most accepted and widely used theory in research on work engagement (Saks, 2006). The theory suggests that people make social decisions based on the costs and benefits they perceive. This indicates a reciprocal 5

relationship between a leader and a follower. The more a leader supports their followers the more a follower is willing to make the most of their individual and team performance (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002). On the basis of the social exchange theory employees will repay the inclusion of their leader through their level of engagement, a happy, excited, and active employee. The social exchange theory is often perceived as a broad theory. Therefore, the optimal distinctiveness (OD) theory will be used to further substantiate and elaborate the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement. This theory posits that the relationship between a persons self-concept and their membership in a social group is regulated by two opposing needs (Brewer, 1991). The first is the need for inclusion, which refers to the desire of belonging that motivates immersion in social groups. The second need is the need for differentiation from others, which is in contrary to the need for immersion. When a group member becomes more inclusive, their need for inclusion is satisfied, but the need for differentiation arises. Conversely, when the need for inclusion is not satisfied, the need for differentiation decreases and the need for inclusion is activated (Leonardelli, Pickett & Brewer, 2010). An equilibrium between both needs is referred to as the optimal state. The first antecedent of work engagement is job autonomy (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). This need can be allocated to the differentiation component of the OD theory, because it emphasizes to what extent a follower feels like having control over their own work situation. Inclusive leaders respect and recognize their followers as an individual by giving them control over their own work situation. The second antecedent of work engagement is the need for job responsibility (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). This aspect can be allocated to the inclusion component of the OD theory. When an employee is included in the decision making of their inclusive leader they will experience greater responsibility, which in addition is one of the components of inclusive leadership. The last antecedent, job variety, can be allocated to both the inclusion- and differentiation component (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Being included by an inclusive leader in all aspects of the organization, as well as respecting strengths and weaknesses of followers and being responsive towards followers gives them the opportunity to expand their task variety. All three antecedents of work engagement are influenced by the type of leadership (Hollander, 2012). Inclusive leaders stimulate their followers to expand the use of their skills (job variety), to take control of their own work situation (job autonomy), and inclusive leaders enlarge the responsibilities of their followers (job responsibility) (Hollander, 2009). In the study of Choi, Tran and Park (2015) inclusive leaders tend to have a positive effect on the 6

engagement of their followers. A study conducted by Hardré and Reeve (2009) shows that when leaders use a more autonomous-supportive management style followers experience more autonomy and support which in turn increases their work engagement. Therefore, the following hypothesis is posed: H1: Inclusive leadership has a positive effect on work engagement. Inclusive leadership, work engagement and the moderating effect of work locus of control In this section the focus will be on the effect WLC has on the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement. Howell and Shamir (2005) argued that personal characteristics of a follower are important to their reaction to their leader. For example, personal characteristics affects what type of leader followers prefer. Rotter (1966) stated that the personal characteristic locus of control can be divided in two types of generalized control beliefs. People who believe that they can control the reinforcements through their own behaviour have an internal locus of control (internals). People with an external locus of control (externals) believe that external forces as luck and fate control the reinforcements of their behaviour. However, a person can have a different locus of control on different aspects of life (Muhonen & Torkelson, 2004). For instance, a person can have an internal locus of control regarding achievements but an external locus of control when it comes to health outcomes. In the work context a person s WLC refers to the way employees interpret the work related situations they encounter (Rotter, 1966). It is likely that the influence of a leadership style on work engagement is different for internals than for externals. Zhu, Avolio, and Walumbwa (2009) found that follower characteristics moderate the positive relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement. More specifically, Runyon (1973) found a moderating effect of locus on control on the relation between supervisory style and how satisfied followers are with their supervisor. Whereas the results stated that internals were more satisfied with a participative supervisory style and externals were more satisfied with a directive supervisory style. Participative leadership, which is closely related to inclusive leadership, is defined as a shared influence in decision making by the leader and the follower (Koopman & Wierdsma, 1998) and directive leadership refers to providing the followers with a framework for decision making that is in line with the vision of the leader by guiding and stimulating them (Sagie, 1997). Ng, Sorensen, and Eby (2006) state that internals rather see themselves as the cause of the things that happen to them rather than the environment. In addition, internals feel less need for stimulation and guidance of a leader, but prefer a reciprocal relationship with their leader (Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006). 7

All in all, it can be assumed that internals are more satisfied with an inclusive leadership style than externals, and will ultimately lead to more work engagement among internals than externals. Based on the above mentioned studies and assumptions the following hypothesis can be formulated: H2: Inclusive leadership has a stronger effect on followers with an internal work locus of control than followers with an external work locus of control regarding work engagement. Combining H1 and H2 together into one leads to the following conceptual model: Internal work locus of control + Inclusive leadership + Work engagement Method Research set-up This study is an explanatory study which was executed via a quantitative research design. As the conceptual model in Figure 1 shows, the direct relation between inclusive leadership and work engagement as well as the moderating effect of WLC on this relation were examined. In 2015 data was collected with a questionnaire very similar to the questionnaire of this study. For the data collection of this study, respondents of that previous study who were interested in cooperating in related future research, were contacted again to fill in a similar questionnaire. Procedure To contact the respondents of the sample in 2015, their phone numbers and email addresses were registered. First, they were contacted via a phone call, and after them pointing out they are willing to cooperate, they received an email with the link to the Qualtrics questionnaire. This email contained a cover letter with the scientific purpose and 8

confidentiality of the study (Appendix B.). When the questionnaire was not filled out after a week a reminder was send. For the additional data collection the social network of all researchers was used. Emails were send with the link to the Qualtrics questionnaire. This email contained a cover letter with the scientific purpose and the confidentiality of the study as well. After a week reminders were send to the people who did not fill out the questionnaire yet. Description of test subject The population of this study consists out of the Dutch workforce. The requirements for the respondents to participate in the study in 2015 was that they had to work at least 12 hours a week and they had to have a supervisor. Students participating in this study each collected questionnaires from 15 respondents. The respondents had to be equally distributed in men and women and in three ages groups namely, 16-30 years old, 30-50 years old, and 50 years and older. Respondents were approached based on ease and access of the students collecting the data. Therefore, the used sampling method was convenience, stratified, and snowballing. The total amount of respondents during the previous research was N=627 (T1). For data collection of this study, only the respondents who were interested in cooperating in related future research, were contacted again which were 189 respondents out of a total of N=627. From these 189 respondents N=103 filled in the new questionnaire (T2). To gain additional data the questionnaire was also distributed among the social networks of all researchers involved. While gathering this data no attention was paid to the equal distribution of gender and age. Respondents were approached based on ease and access. Therefore, the used sampling method was convenience and snowballing. A total of N=220 filled in this questionnaire. Both these data were merged together to a total of N=323. Table 1 shows demographic information of the sample. The majority of the respondents was female (58.7%). The age of the respondents ranged from 19 to 64 (M=40.3 years, SD=13.8 years). Table 1. Demographic information of the sample M SD % Gender: Male 41.3 Female 58.7 Education: 9

Secondary school 15.5 Intermediate vocational education 20.4 Higher professional education 34.5 Scientific education 25.0 Other 4.1 Age 40.26 13.76 Actual working hours 35.93 11.66 Job tenure 11.49 10.76 To check whether the two data files could be merged the descriptive and the study variables where compared. Except for two variables, none of the variables differed significantly from each other. The M of age was 6.2 years higher in T2 than in T1, which could be explained by the different sampling methods. Because T2 was not sampled stratified, not all ages are equally represented. WLC differs significantly as well. An explanation for this finding cannot be determined only by these results and further investigation will be needed. Additionally, differences in the study variables could exist between different sectors. Before checking for differences, all 19 sectors were clustered into five categories namely government, industry/construction, food, trade/transportation, service, and other/culture. None of the categories differed looking at the study variables. Instruments In this research the constructs inclusive leadership, work engagement, and WLC will be measured. To measure these constructs a questionnaire was set up (Appendix A.). Because of space limitations of the questionnaire some variables were reduced to smaller scales. To measure the internal validity of all scales an explorative factor analysis (Principal Component Analysis) was conducted. The component matrices of the three study variables can be found in appendix C. Inclusive leadership. The first scale of the variable inclusive leadership was based on Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) and Nishii (2012). The scale consists out of three dimensions namely openness, accessibility and availability. The version for this research was developed by Van Engen and Meyers (unpublished). This concept was measured during the data collection in 2015 as well. The scale originally consisted out of 25 items all starting with My supervisor... For this study the scale was reduced to five items. An example of an item that measured inclusive leadership was My supervisor encourages me to use my talents. 10

All items are scored on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree. After conducting the factor analysis it was found that inclusive leadership consists of one component. Additionally, a reliability analysis was performed and resulted in a Cronbach s alpha of.821 and all items contributed to the reliability. Another factor analyses was conducted over the T1 data and these results showed only one component as well. The Cronbach s alpha of this scale was.803 and all items contributed to the reliability of the scale. During T1 inclusive leadership as well as transformational leadership was measured. These constructs are often related to each other in the theory. Measuring these two scales gives the opportunity to check for discriminate validity. To measure the discriminate validity the complete dataset collected in 2015 N=627 was used. An r of.829 and a p of.001 between the two scales indicates that the two constructs are highly correlated. Out of the 26 items of inclusive leadership three items had to be reversed. A factor analyses showed 7 components, but the screeplot however showed one clear component with an eigenvalue of 43.9%. After forcing all items in one fixed component it shows that all items, except for one item of inclusive leadership, have factor loadings of.3 higher. The item with a factor loading that was to low was deleted from the scale. The Cronbach s alpha of the scale was.963 which indicates a highly reliable scale. All in all, these results show that inclusive leadership and transformational leadership tend to measure the same. Therefore, the discriminate validity of inclusive leadership is low. Work engagement. The second scale, work engagement, was based on Schaufeli and Bakker (2004). In this scale three dimensions can be distinguished namely vigor, dedication, and absorption. This scale consists out of nine items as for instance, my work inspires me. This scale was measured on a seven-point Likert scale that goes from 1: never to 7: always. This construct was measured at the data collection in 2015 as well. Performing the factor analysis showed that the scale consisted out of two components. However, all items scored higher on component one than component two. Additionally, component one had an eigenvalue of 5.516 and predicted 61.3 % where component two had an eigenvalue of 1.026 and predicted only 11.4%. Therefore, only component one was used. The reliability analysis showed a Cronbach s alpha of.917 and all items contributed to the reliability of the scale. A factor analyses of the scale in T1 showed almost exact the same results. This scale had again two components, one with an eigenvalue of 61.4% and the other one had an eigenvalue of 11.4%. The reliability analysis showed a Cronbach s alpha of.920 and all items contributed to the reliability of the scale. 11

Work locus of control. The last scale is based on Spector (1988) and the translation is based on Maat (2007). The scale originally consisted out of 16 items. Because of the limited item space in the questionnaire six items were deleted from the scale. The motivation for deleting these 6 items was that they were the least related to focus of this research and some of the items are very similar to items that are kept in the scale. An example of an item is Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune. All items are scored on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from 1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree. From the ten items five had to be reversed, because they were formulated in the opposite direction. A factor analyses varimax rotated resulted in two components. The first component contained all items that were not reversed and all items concerned own accomplishments. This component had an eigenvalue of 2.988 and predicts 25.7%. The second component contained all items that were reversed and concerned Luck and fate. This component had an eigenvalue of 1.546 and predicts 19.7%. The scatterplot shows 2 components as well. The reliability analysis of the first component resulted in a Cronbach s alpha of.584. The second component had a Cronbach s alpha of.759 and all items contributed to the reliability of the scale. This indicates that only the luck and fate part of the scale is reliable. This would only cover half of the theoretical content of the scale and could therefore be considered as incomplete. Based on this assumption, all items are put into one fixed component for an optimal construct validity. The results showed that all items had a factor loading of.3 or higher. The scale had a Cronbach s alpha of.730 and all items contributed to the reliability of the scale. Some researchers divide respondents into either internals or externals (Cvetanovski & Jex, 1994), whereas others view WLC as a continuum ranging from high external work locus of control to high internal locus of control (Renn & Vandenberg, 1991). The continuum strategy was used for this study. Age. The first control variable that was added is age. Several studies found that older employees are more engaged than younger employees (Pitt-Catsouphes & Matz-Costa, 2008, and James, McKenchnie, & Swanberg, 2011). Respondents had to answer the question What is your year of birth?. This item was recoded into a different variable which showed the age of the respondents. Actual working hours. The second control variable is actual working hours. Stamper and van Dyne (2003) found that employees with more working hours were more likely to show organizational citizenship behavior and therefore become more engaged than people with less working hours. For this variable respondents had to answer the question How many hours do you actually work per week?. 12

Job tenure with current supervisor. Thirdly, the variable job tenure with current supervisor will be added. Despite no research was found to confirm this assumption, it might be relevant to add this control variable. It is possible that the extent to which a follower experiences inclusiveness depends on how long follower and supervisor know each other. Respondents had to answer the question How many years do you work for your current supervisor?. Job tenure with current supervisor showed a strikingly low N in the data set. An explanation could be that the exact desirable answer to the question was unclear to the respondents Perceived similarity. The last control variable is a member s perceived similarity with their leader. Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993) found that if a member perceives similarities with their leader this has a positive effect on leader-member exchange, which ultimately is positively related to work engagement. For this variable respondents had to answer two questions, namely My supervisor and I share the same view and My supervisor and I share the same view on different aspects. Results Descriptive results The means, standard deviations and correlations are shown in Table 2. Inclusive leadership has a significant positive correlation with work engagement (r=.325, p <.001). Additionally, there is a significant correlation between WLC and work engagement (r=.322, p<.001). The control variable perceived similarity is positively correlated with work engagement (r=.284, p<.001), inclusive leadership (r=.652, p<.001), and WLC (r=.223, p<.001). The high correlation with inclusive leadership and the content of the two variables might suggest that they both measure the same construct. To check whether this is the case a factor analyses was conducted with both the variables of inclusive leadership and perceived similarity. The results showed that this construct has one component and all items contribute to a reliable scale with a Cronbach s alpha of.864. Therefore, perceived similarity was not used as a control variable in the regression analyses. Actual working hours is positively correlated with work engagement (r=.146, p<.01), suggesting that the more hours you spend working the more engaged a follower gets. Both job tenure and age are not correlated with the variables in the conceptual model. 13

Table 2. Sample size (N), means (M), standard deviations (SD), and correlations (N=323) N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.Work engagement 318 4.24 1.01-2.Inclusive leadership 315 3.54.74.33 ** - 3.WLC 318 3.66.65.32 **.33 ** - 4.Perceived similarity 317 3.22.82.28 **.65 **.22 ** - 5.Actual working hours 313 35.93 11.66.15 *.07 -.02.03-6.Job tenure with current supervisor 285 4.03 4.89.09 -.07 -.01.03.01-7.Age 312 40.26 13.76.01.05.05.10.09.30 ** - **p<.001 *p<.01 Testing hypotheses Before testing the hypotheses the data was tested for homoscedasticity using a scatterplot. This scatterplot shows that the assumption of homoscedasticity was not violated. A multiple regression analysis was performed to test the effect of multiple independent variables on a continuous dependent variable (Table 3). The p of the regression coefficient indicates whether the assumed relations are significant and the R 2 change shows whether the added variable to the regression leads to an increase in explained variance. Before all regression analyses were conducted all variables were centralized. In the first step of the regression analysis control variables are added to test for spurious effect. Secondly, the independent variables inclusive leadership and WLC were entered to predict the dependent variable work engagement. Finally, the interaction term (inclusive leadership * WLC) was added to the model to test if there is a moderating effect of WLC. The results in Table 3 show that there is no spurious effect found with the control variables of this study. In addition Hypothesis 1 stated that inclusive leadership has a positive effect on work engagement and was supported by the results (β =.328, p=<.001) as shown in Table 3. Model 2 showed an R 2 change of.222. The increase in explained variance between inclusive leadership and work engagement was significant p=<.001. Hypothesis 2 states that inclusive leadership has a stronger effect on followers with an internal WLC than followers with an external WLC regarding work engagement. Model 3 shows a significant R 2 change. This suggests there is an increase in explained variance between the interaction term and work engagement. However, there is no significant regression coefficient of interaction effect of WLC in the relation between inclusive 14

leadership and work engagement (β =-.047, p=.336). Contrary to the theory, employees with an internal locus of control do not differ from people with an internal locus of control in the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement. However, there is a significant relation between WLC and work engagement (β =.268, p=<.001). Model 2 showed an R 2 change of.222. The increase in explained variance between WLC and work engagement was significant p=<.001. The positive regression coefficient indicates that followers with an internal locus of control are more work engaged than followers with an external locus of control. This result might suggest that there as a mediating effect instead of an expected moderating effect of WLC. To check whether this is a true a regression analyses, with WLC as a mediator, was conducted. These results indeed show that there is a significant mediating effect of WLC between the relation of inclusive leadership and work engagement. There is a direct effect of inclusive leadership on WLC (β =.219, p=<.001), a direct effect of inclusive leadership on work engagement (β =.296, p=<.001) and a direct effect of WLC on work engagement (β =.145, p=.007). In addition, an indirect effect of inclusive leadership via WLC on work engagement was found (β =.032, p=<.001). Table 3. Regression analyses (N = 323) Work engagement Model 1 2 3 β β β Actual working hours.147*.134*.134* Job tenure with current supervisor.063.075.079 Age.100.092.094 Inclusive Leadership.239**.237** WLC.268**.262** WLC * Inclusive leadership -.047 R 2 4.3% 20.1% 22.5% Δ R 2.22**.22** F 4.077** 15.047** 12.690** **p<.001 *p<.01 Longitudinal study Part of the sample of this study had measurements at two time s namely inclusive leadership and work engagement. These were measured at two times, which makes it possible to check whether relationships consist over time and also give an indication for the causality direction. The N=80 of this file is much lower than the 103 respondents who filled in the 15

questionnaire twice. This is because of the respondents, who did not work for the same supervisor the second time as they did the first time, that had to be deleted from the file. Table 4 shows that inclusive leadership T1 and T2 are highly correlated (r=.71, p=<.001). The same goes for work engagement T1 and T2 (r=.72, p=<.001). As examined before, there is a relation between inclusive leadership T2 and work engagement T2. However, Table 4 shows that there is no correlation between inclusive leadership T1 and work engagement T2. This finding does not make it possible to assume causality in this relationship. An additional regression was conducted to check whether there is moderating effect of WLC on the relationship between inclusive leadership T1 and work engagement T2. But again no significant effects were found. Another interesting result is that there is a positive correlation between inclusive leadership T1 and WLC measured at T2 (r=.289, p=.011). A regression analysis showed a significant direct effect of inclusive leadership on WLC (β =.207, p=.011). Lastly, contradicting to the theory, a positive correlation is found between work engagement T1 and inclusive leadership T2 (r=.461, p=<.001). Table 4. Sample size (N), means (M), standard deviations (SD), and correlations (N=80) 1.Inclusive leadership T1 75 3.58.80 - N M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2.Work engagement T1 75 4.38.90.31 ** - 3.Inclusive leadership T2 78 3.47.79.71 **.46 ** - 4.Work engagement T2 79 4.38.91.15.72 **.44 ** - 5.WLC 80 3.55.57.29 *.13.33 **.14-6.Actual working hours 74 36.04 13.23.11.40 **.25 *.24 *.03-7. Job tenure with current supervisor 70 5.30 6.20 -.01.01 -.09.08.01.11-8. Age 71 44.73 13.27.07.15.36 *.22.29 *.37 **.16 - **p<.001 *p<.01 Conclusion Nowadays, an engaged workforce is becoming increasingly important. About 14% of the Dutch workforce experiences burnout complaints and this number is increasing every year. Therefore, it becomes increasingly important to shift the workforce from experiencing burnout to experiencing work engagement (Schaufei, Taris & Rhenen, 2008). One of the most 16

important antecedents of work engagement is the style of leadership (Bakker, Albrecht & Leiter, 2011). As argued by Ruyon (1973) the relationship between supervisory style and work engagement is likely to vary depending on certain individual factors. The focus of the current study was the effect of the personal trait WLC on the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement leading to the following research question: To what extent does inclusive leadership have an influence on work engagement and does this relationship differ for people with a different work locus of control? The results of this study showed that inclusive leadership indeed has an influence on work engagement, as expected in the theory. In contrary to the expectations based on empirical evidence, no difference was found between employees with an internal WLC and employees with an external WLC on the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement. However, WLC does have an effect on how work engaged employees are. These findings will be elaborated in greater detail in the next section. Discussion Interpretation The social exchange theory and the optimal distinctiveness theory and additional empirical research were the basis for the assumption that inclusive leadership leads to higher work engagement (hypothesis 1). This assumption was supported by the findings of this study. According to Hollander (2012) inclusive leadership is based on a reciprocal relationship between leader and follower depending on respect, recognition, responsiveness, and responsibility. Work engagement is formed by satisfying the need for job variety, autonomy, and responsibility (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Hollander (2009) found that an inclusive leaders stimulate their followers to expand the use of their skills (job variety), to take control of their own work situation (job autonomy), and inclusive leaders enlarge the responsibilities of their followers (job responsibility). The social exchange theory suggest that the more a leader supports their followers the more a follower is willing to make the most of their individual and team performance. The OD theory suggests that people on the one hand have the need for inclusion and on the other hand the need for differentiation. The need for job autonomy can be allocated to the differentiation component, the need for responsibility can be allocated to the inclusion component, and the need for job variety can be allocated to both components. In this study, the social exchange theory and the OD theory have shown to 17

be an appropriate explanation for the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement. Based on empirical evidence, it was suggested that inclusive leadership has a stronger effect on followers with an internal locus of control than followers with an external locus of control regarding work engagement (hypothesis 2). This hypothesis was not supported by the findings of this study. However, the results of this study did show that the control beliefs of a follower at their work has an effect on the work engagement of a follower. In addition, an inclusive leader has an effect on how a follower interprets work related situations. Finally, an inclusive leader effects the work engagement of their followers via effecting their work control beliefs. This indicates a mediating effect. The direct effect of inclusive leadership on WLC is a remarkable and a contradicting finding looking at the study of Spector (1988) where WLC is presented as personality variable. Most definitions of personal traits suggest that personal traits stay consistent over time (West & Graziano, 1989). The findings of this study however suggest that either the personal trait WLC does not stay consistent over time and is influenced among other things by inclusive leadership or WLC should not be presented as a personal trait. It might be that WLC should be interpreted as an acquired trait. Finding a mediating effect explains why no moderating effect is found. WLC is not only an independent concept that predicts work engagement, but also a concept that is influenced by inclusive leadership. After analysing the cross-sectional dataset the longitudinal dataset was analysed. These results suggested that inclusive leadership and work engagement both stay consistent over time. Another interesting finding from this data file was that inclusive leadership measured in 2015 has no effect on work engagement measured in 2016. This suggests that an inclusive leader at one point in time has no effect on the work engagement of a follower over time. However, the results show that work engagement measured in 2015 has an effect on inclusive leadership measured in 2016. This could mean two things, either engaged followers perceive their leader as more inclusive over time, or a leader becomes more inclusive over time when followers are more engaged. Additionally, a direct effect of inclusive leadership on WLC was found within the cross-sectional data set but is also found between inclusive leadership measured in 2015 and WLC measured in 2016. This finding suggests that inclusive leaders at one point in time have a direct effect on how a follower interprets work related situations over time. 18

Limitations and suggestions future research This study had some limitations, which can be taken into account in future research. The partly longitudinal design of this study was an added value and gave some interesting insights. However, because not all concepts were measured during in 2015 and in 2016, only the possible causality could not be fully determined. Therefore, a suggestion for future research would be to collect longitudinal data and collect data of all concepts at both times. This makes drawing conclusions about causality more reliable. However, it should be noted that this is only one of the requirements of ascertaining causality. Secondly, convenience, snowballing and partly stratified sampling was used which is are non-random selection methods. An important disadvantage of a non-random selection method is that the results of the study cannot easily be generalized to the population. For instance, by using the social networks of the researchers the average education level of the sample could be higher than the average educational level of the population. This might lead to respondents working in higher positions and experiencing aspects of their jobs different from people working in lower positions. The large sample size however reduces this disadvantage by increasing the reliability. For future research, it is advisable to use random, stratified sampling. Thirdly, the concept inclusive leadership was measured via the perception of the follower and could therefore be interpreted as perceived inclusive leadership. The results of this study are only restricted to the perception of one follower. Data collection among team members instead of individuals would give a more complete view on inclusive leadership. Adding the perception of the leader would give even more information about the concept inclusive leadership. Therefore, it is advisable for future research to study teams instead of individuals and add an inclusive leadership scale where the leader can rate him or herself on how inclusive they perceive themselves. Fourthly, the concept perceived similarity was found to measure the same construct as inclusive leadership. A possible explanation for this finding could be found in the inclusive leadership dimensions of Carmeli and his colleagues (2010). According to Carmeli and his colleagues (2010) an inclusive leader is open, accessible, and available. Perceived similarity in turn focuses on similarities in looking at things (Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell, 1993). It seems plausible that a follower perceives a leader as similar when he or she is open, accessible, and available to a follower. Therefore, it is advisable for future research to check the content validity of both constructs and check whether they measure what they should measure. Additionally, transformational leadership tends to measure the same construct as 19

inclusive leadership as well. In the theory, both concepts are often related to each other (Hollander, 2012). Perceived similarity as well as transformational leadership tend to measure the same as inclusive leadership. Therefore, a limitation for this study is that the discriminate validity of inclusive leadership is low. For future research, it might be interesting to further investigate the theoretical content of inclusive leadership compared to other leadership styles. An adjustment to the current scale could then be made. Fifthly, no effect was found of inclusive leadership measured in 2015 on work engagement measured in 2016, which is a striking result. It seems plausible that the work engagement of a follower in 2016 is affected by the inclusiveness of their leader in 2016 as well as 2015. However, not finding these results might be explained by the low sample size of the longitudinal dataset. Further investigating in the found relationship between work engagement measured in 2015 and inclusive leadership measured in 2016 might be interesting. This finding implies reversed causality and further investigation, with the use of a longitudinal research design, will gain more clarity in this finding. Lastly, for future research it might be interesting to further investigate the WLC scale. The factor analyses revealed two components and only one reliable component. Other studies that used the WLC scale seem to have no problem with the reliability of the scale. It seems plausible that shortening the scale from 16 to 10 items might have led to the low Cronbach s alpha of the scale. Therefore, for future research it is advisable to use all 16 items of WLC scale proposed by Spector (1988). In addition, further investigation on the mediating effect of WLC on the relationship between inclusive leadership and work engagement might be interesting. This will give more insight in the variable WLC and could lead to beneficial practical implications for organizations. But investigating how to interpret WLC, as a personal trait or not, might be interesting as well. It could be interesting to study to what extent WLC a personal trait is and how stable this concept is over time. Practical implications This study results in some practical implications that could contribute to the HR field and organizational human and financial outcomes. Inclusive leaders have a positive effect on the work engagement of their followers, which in turn leads to positive organizational outcomes. Despite, that the effect of inclusive leadership on WLC and the effect of WLC on work engagement were not part of the study, these results were found after analysing the data. Inclusive leaders thus contribute to a more internal WLC where employees see themselves more as the cause of things rather than their environment. Employees with an internal WLC in 20

turn experience higher work engagement. In addition, employees with an internal WLC are more satisfied with their job, report less stress, perceive more autonomy and control, and enjoy longer job tenure (Spector, 1988). It might be beneficial for organizations to invest in inclusive leadership by attracting, training and retaining the right people. In conclusion, this study implies that the type of leadership style has an impact on organizational human outcomes like work engagement. Organizations should be aware of this positive impact and that it might be beneficial to invest in their leaders becoming more inclusive. 21

References Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(4), 4 28. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475 482. Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250-260. CBS (2015, November 16) CBS en TNO: Een op de zeven werknemers heeft burn-out klachten. Retrieved from www.cbs.nl. Choi, S. B., Tran, T. B. H., & Park, B. I. (2015). Inclusive Leadership and Work Engagement: Mediating Roles of Affective Organizational Commitment and Creativity. Social Behavior And Personality: An International Journal, 43(6), 931-943. doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.6.931 Cvetanovski, J., & Jex, S.M. (1994). Locus of control ofunemployed people and its relationship to psychologicaland physical well-being. Work & Stress, 8, 60 67. Hardré, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2009). Training Corporate Managers to Adopt a More Autonomy- Supportive Motivating Style toward Employees: An Intervention Study. International Journal Of Training And Development, 13(3), 165-184. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2009.0032.x Hollander, E. (2012). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. Routledge. Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. New York, NY: Routledge. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. The Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 96 112. James, J. B., McKechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Predicting employee engagement in an age-diverse retail workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 173-196. doi: 10.1002/job.681 Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative management. In P. J. D. Doentu, H. 22