International Journal of

Management Research and Homepage: http://ijmres.pk/

Emerging Sciences Volume 9 Issue 1 (2019) PP. 140-148

MEDIATING ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT IN THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIVE WORK
BEHAVIOR IN HEALTH CARE SECTOR

Maryam Hafeez
Azman Hashim International Business School (AHIBS), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Malaysia.
Email: [email protected]
Usman Kaleem Paracha
Faculty of Management Sciences, International Islamic University, Pakistan
Email: [email protected]
Dr. Siti Aishyah Panatik
Associate Professor, School of Human Resource Development and Psychology, Universiti Tecknologi Malaysia
Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Purpose: The major purpose of this study is to investigate the mediation of psychological
empowerment and on the relationship between the Independent and dependent variable i.e
inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior IWB. Design/Methodology/Approach:
Total 387 questionnaires are filled by the employees (nurses) working in the private hospitals
of Pakistan. AMOS and SPSS is used to analyzed the data. Findings: This study reveals that
their psychological empowerment mediated the relationship between inclusive leadership
and innovative work behavior. The results os this study shows that there is positive
relationship between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior. Results also shows
that the relationship between inclusive leaders and innovative work behavior is positively
mediated by the psychological empowerment. Implications/Originality/Value: In the
literature of IWB this study adds the empirically testing the mediation of psychological
empowerment on Inclusive leadership – innovative work behavior link.
KEYWORDS: Inclusive leadership, innovative work behavior. Psychological
empowerment

1. INTRODUCTION
In today’s world it’s a challenge to deliver even more modified, advanced technology for patient care, response
for treatment is quicker, and to increase patient retention efficient communication and coordination and it is
investigated that hospital management to be innovative work behaviors among nursing staff to raise the quality of
medical care. Without any reason it is understood that for the greater benefit of the patient and the nursing community
continues innovation is the crucial driving force (Duarte, Goodson, & Dougherty, 2014; Piening, 2011). In an Intense
knowledge based work context to innovate and motivate employees, Researchers and practitioners has received
intentions on the role of managers as leader. Key components of employee innovative work behavior are when and
employee develop, promotes and implement new ideas that leads to the innovation of employees (Janssen, 2000).
At organization, individual levels and work group antecedents of Innovative work behavior have been studies
for decades .Innovative work behavior is significantly associated with work groups, leadership, work climate,
individual differences job demand and characteristics that is asserted by many scholars(Scott & Bruce, 1994; Anderson
& West, 1998; Janssen, 2000; Baer & Frese, 2003; Anderson, Dreu, & Nijstad, 2004; Hammond, Neff, Farr, Schwall,
& Zhao, 2011; Zlatanović & Mulej, 2015; Franco & Haase, 2016).In the middle of all of these innovative work
behavior predictors, on employee innovative work behavior leadership plays a conspicuous role. According to
Gerybadze, Hommel, Reiners, and Thomaschewski (2010) among all explanatory factors for employee innovative
work behavior leader’s role as a supportive behavior is much more important. Researchers consequently research the
problem that why and how the innovative work behavior determinants effects leadership. Some kind of out of routine
behavior involved in innovative work behavior that indicates high risk involved where employees are able to speak
about new ideas and avoid traditional thinking (Kanter, 1988; Kessel, Hannemann- Weber, & Kratzer, 2012). This
determines that the status quo is challenged by employees by disputatious with supervisor; thus to promote IWB high
degree of autonomy as an employee needed (Janssen, 2005).

Vol. 9 (1), 2019 23

Hafeez, Paracha & Panatik Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment . . .
Ali

Relationship between leader and subordinates is the unique way that makes behavior of employee to be
innovative. The focus of this research is taken on inclusive leadership style with the relationship with innovative work
behavior further explicitly mediation of psychological empowerment between Inclusive leadership and innovative
work behavior. The growth and competitiveness of organizations employee innovation is widely recognized as being
critical particularly in the context of intense knowledge. Supervisors desired outcomes is closely related to an
individual perception of supervisors’ inclusive leadership (e.g. Braun et al., 2013; Chun et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2011).
Second, followers psychological process is difficult to understand in which translate behaviors of the leaders in to the
actions of followers (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Previous researches reveals on that there is still a gap exist to
explore the psychological empowerment as a mediation between inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior
(Javed et al.,2017). This article explains the employee psychological empowerment with the relationship between
innovative work behavior and inclusive leadership. Followers innovative work behavior explains the generation and
commencement of useful ideas and executing these ideas to produce new ways to do things or new and improve
products (Baer, 2012; Kanter, 1988; van de Ven, 1986).
These lines linked with past research, which combined two phases that is idea generation and idea
implementation phase and also combined these two phases to make one concept that is innovative behavior (Baer,
2012; Baer and Frese, 2003; Scott and Bruce, 1998; Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2013). Inclusive leaders authorize
subordinates to show their availability in each step of activities and give part of each employees in decision making
(Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010), To generate new and novel ideas leaders support employees (Sharifirad &
Ataei, 2012) IWB is the first stage is generating new ideas (Basadur, 2004). This leadership style encourages
subordinates to create new ideas and implement these ideas. Consequently, Employees Innovative work behavior is
being enhanced by the inclusive leadership styleFew of the researchers considered that researches in past still not
examined inclusive leadership and the significant impact of employees’ psychological mechanisms (Shalley et al.,
2004; Javed et al.,2017). Psychological empowerment is considered as the autonomy and power of an individual that
can be Innovative positive changes and to initiate novel that individual can do with the perception of autonomy and
power is known as psychological empowerment (Ramamoorthy et al., 2005). For taking psychological empowerment
as a mediation between leadership and IWB depends on the significance of PE in forecasting creativity of employees
(Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Subsequently essential element of IWB is creativity, thus it is suggested that Inclusive
leadership- Innovative work behavior relation is likely have impact by psychological empowerment.
Leader- member exchange theory is used to explain the effect of Inclusive leadership and innovative work
behavior. According to the theory positive outcomes is been created by the high quality of leader-follower relationship
(Basu & Green, 1997; Costigan, Insinga, Jason Berman, Ilter, Kranas, & Kureshov, 2006). meanwhile, to have high
quality relation with leaders and psychological empowered employees generate, promote, implement new ideas (Ilies,
Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Carmeli, Reiter- Palmon, & Ziv, 2010; Volmer, Spurk, & Niessen, 2012).In this study
we are investigating direct relationship between inclusive leadership and the mediation effect of psychological
empowerment. Specially in hospital nurses of Pakistan past researches is done in different other sectors like IT,
banking sectors and countries like china, India, USA
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior
According to Farr and Ford Innovative work behavior is defined as” the intentional introduction within one’s
work role of new and useful ideas, processes, products, or procedures” (p. 63). Kanter (1988) and Scott and Bruce
(1994) innovative behavior consist of process with different stages. It includes recognition of problems, ideas
generation, support building for ideas and ideas implementation. Whereas Amabile (1998) stated that innovative work
behavior is a motivational issue. Anderson et al. (2004) recognized that innovative work behavior have many factors
that became the organizers of it. Innovative work behavior with particular leadership styles is commonly investigated.
For example transformational leadership (Afsar et al. 2014a, b; Sharifirad 2013; Janssen 2000; Nusair et al. 2012;
Reuvers et al. 2008), leader- member exchange (Agarwal et al. 2012; Sanders et al. 2010; Volmer et al. 2012).and
ethical leadership. All of these studies have one cohesion that to occur employee innovative behavior, the leader wants
to inspire, and support creativity (Shalley and Gilson 2004).
Openness, accessibility and availability of an inclusive leader encourages satisfaction of employees that is
linked with the leader and increase knowledge and expertise of employees (Carmeli et al. 2010; Choi et al. 2015), so
it encourages employees to engage in innovative work behavior. Employee innovative work behavior is positively
associated with inclusive leadership. firstly the inclusive leaders have supportive behavior that gives employees
intellectual resources that encourages them to involved in creative work (Amabile 1997; Vinarski-Peretz and

Vol. 9 (1), 2019 24

International Journal of
Management Research and
Emerging Sciences

Carmeli, 2010).Along the same line, Tierney et al. (1999) reveals that components of employee innovative behavior
is employee creativity that is being enhanced by the encouragement and open interaction with followers from leaders
(West 2002). Second, leader support with employees suggestion and ideas to create an sense provision for employee
creativity and support., which creates supportive climate for subordinates to investigate and propose (Cerne et
al. 2013). It is the observation employees feel free to share information and direct authentic thoughts related to work
in supportive climate (Kernis 2003). Leaders support facilitates and fosters innovative behavior that is developed over
time by supportive climate (Åmo 2006; Cropanzano and Mitchell,2005)
On the basis of leader member exchange theory, many reasons have been found for the significance relationship
between IWB and inclusive leadership. Inclusive leaders respond positively and on time to the problems of employees,
they respect employees to take challenging goals and support them, they encourage and appreciates the effort of
employees for the achievement of particular goal (Hollander, 2012). First, that encourages more to illustrate IWB
(Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999; Tierney, 2008; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009;
Hollander, 2009; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010; Aryee et al., 2012; Yeh-Yun Lin & Liu, 2012).Second , in the linked with
relationship value with Inclusive leader, in terms of beneficial resources like time, material, innovative related
information employees experience leadership support that take employees to develop, promote , and implement new
ideas (Ilies, Nahrgang,& Morgeson, 2007; Hollander, 2009; Shore et al., 2011; Liu, Liao, & Loi, 2012; Choi, Tran,
& Park,2015; Wang, Fang, Qureshi, & Janssen, 2015; Piansoongnern, 2016). Finally, employees’ positive feelings
and emotions in being enhanced by inclusive leaders (Hollander, 2009) which indulge employees in innovative tasks
by motivating them (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010; Yeh-Yun Lin & Liu, 2012) in the basis of above opinions,
it is being hypothesis that.
H1: Inclusive leadership have positive impact on innovative work behaviour.
Psychological Empowerment as a Mediator
Psychological empowerment is to investigate and innovate positive changes in an individual perception of
autonomy and power (Ramamoorthy et al., 2005). Spreitzer (1995) defines psychological empowerment consist of
meaning, competence, impact and self-determination as a four motivational components related to the orientation
of an individual to work role. Meaning is based on the ideal or standards that an individual placed on a work role
(Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Competency is the spirit of self-efficacy or expectancy for effort which motivates to
faith about one’s own capabilities to perform tasks with skills (Bandura, 1989). Whenever employees speak up at the
work place leaders considered them as a trouble maker (Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2009). this leads to the demotion
and termination (Ashford, Sutcliffe, & Christianson,2009). Moreover, where employees experience more
psychological empowerment inclusive leaders emotional and intellectual support can help shape and maintain work
context (Hirak, Peng, Carmeli, & Schaubroeck, 2012). leaders with this behavior will help employees, lead and learn
employees (Vaill, 1996),and encourage them to behave innovatively (Crant,2000; Hollander, 2009; Bindl & Parker,
2010; Shore,Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart, & Singh, 2011).task motivation and autonomy is being increased by this
active orientation (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) which raises the probability to engage employees in IWB employees
exhibit creative behaviors when they feel empowered because they feel importance in their work roles(Jung et al.,
2003) stated that empowerment is positively related to the employee innovation. Employees experience the Inclusive
leadership characteristics in the good relationship with inclusive leaders. characteristics of inclusive leaders allow
employees to choose and decide their work tasks on their own.so on this basis they feel empowered under IL. (Nishii
& Mayer, 2009) that encourages employees to create, promote and implement ideas for applied benefits. (De
Spiegelaere, Gyes, & Hootegem, 2012; De Spiegelaere, Gyes, Vandekerckhove, & Hootegem, 2012; De Spiegelaere,
Gyes, Witte, Niesen, & Hootegem, 2014).
Inclusive leaders show individuals that they are those who makes unbiased judgements, they provide employees
with emotional support and raise trust by showing their good and encouraging behavior (Nemhard & Edmondson,
2006; Ryan,2006; Hollander, 2012). these behaviors motivate employees to be innovative (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev,
2009; Mayer, Kuenzi, Greenbaum, Bardes, & Salvador, 2009; Tu & Lu, 2013; Choi, Tran, & Park, 2015). Previous
researches reveals that psychological empowerment have positive effect for not only idea generation but for the
elevation and implementation of ideas that is newly generated (Kark & Carmeli, 2009; Klijn & Tomic, 2010; Gong et
al., 2012; Kessel, Kratzer, & Schultz, 2012; Sharifirad, 2013). On the basis of above all arguments its shows that with
the mediation of PS, IL and IWB indirectly increases.
H2: Psychological empowerment mediates the relationship between IL and IWB.

Vol. 9 (1), 2019 25

Hafeez, Paracha & Panatik Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment . . .
Ali

Research model

Psychological
Empowerment

Inclusive Innovative
leadership Work Behavior

Fig. 1: Theoretical Framework

3. METHODOLOGY
Procedures and participants
Quantitative research methodology with cross sectional design is followed in this research (Struwig & Stead,
2001). For data collection Random sampling technique is used which involves standardized questionnaire. Innovative
work behavior (De Jong and Den Hartog ,2010) and Inclusive leadership (Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, and Ziv ,2010)
questionnaire is adapted by using the 5 point Linkert scale and psychological empowerment (Spreitzer ,1995), with 7
point Linkert scale. The formal letter of consent that includes the purpose of the research is given to the participant,
which includes the importance so this research to the hospitals if Pakistan. Convenience sample (N=387) from private
hospitals is Pakistan were collected. A total 500 questionnaires were distributed and 387 are received back at 70%.
returns rate. The data analysis tool that has been used is AMOS and SPSS. During face to face meeting data was
collected by the nurses and their supervisors(doctors) of the hospitals
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Table 1: Demographic analysis
Demographics Respondents Percentage
Gender:
Male 252 65.1
Female 135 34.9
Age:
Less than 21 36 9.3
22-25 234 60.5
26-30 99 25.6
Above 30 18 4.7
Education:
Undergraduate 45 11.6
Graduate 153 39.5
Master 180 46.5

Confirmatory factor analysis

Table 2: Cronbach alpha, descriptive statistics and correlation matrix
Mean Σ Alpha 1 2 3
IL 3.85 0.555 0.867 1.00
PE 3.94 0.725 0.758 .893** 1.00
IWB 3.86 0.607 0.830 .985** .919** 1.00
**
Significant at 5% Level

Table 2 represents the validity of the data reliability is one of the key measures. The reliability value i.e Cronbach
alpha for Inclusive leadership is 0.867, Psychological Empowerment is 0.758, Innovative work behavior 0.830. the

Vol. 9 (1), 2019 26

International Journal of
Management Research and
Emerging Sciences

reliability of variables is above 0.70 which is highly acceptable. The value exceeding from 0.70 indicated that the data
is consistent (Cronbach & Shavelson, 2004). Correlation value show the significant positive relationship between
Independent Variable Inclusive leadership and Innovative work behavior shows significant positive relation so the
first hypothesis is excepted, the co-relation also shows the significant positive relation between Independent variable
IL and dependent variable IWB with the mediation of Psychological empowerment.

Table 3: Measurement Model

IL PE IWB
Index Cut Off Level
Value Value Value
χ² Low preferred 32.342 2.258 24.482
χ²/df ≤ 5.0 1.470 2.258 1.360
RMR ≤ .08 0.038 0.008 0.021
CFI ≥ .90 0.992 0.998 0.995
GFI ≥ .90 0.984 0.998 0.987
NFI ≥ .90 0.976 0.997 0.981
RMSEA ≤ .10 0.035 0.057 0.031

Table 3 indicate the measurement model. All the value of IL is in the range i.e. 0.038 RMR,0.992 in case of CFI,
0. 984 in GFI, 0.976 in NFI, 0.035 in RMSEA. The value of PE is also in range i.e. 0.008, 0.998, 0.998, 0.997, 0.057
respectively in case of RMR, CFI, GFI, NFI and RMSEA.The value of IWB also range 0.008, 0.998, 0.998, 0.997,
0.057 respectively in case of RMR, CFI, GFI, NFI and RMSEA. The values show that the data us reliable to produce
the further results and also shows the validity of the questionnaire. To test the relationship between the variables these
results are significant for further analysis
Table 4: Mediation through Preacher and Hayes
H2 Effect P-Value LLCI ULCI

IL PE IWB 0.3748 0.0040 0.3078 0.4459

Table 4 table shows that the mediation between IL, PE, IWB is found significant as the both value of LLCI and
ULCI shows the significant values and the case of mediation found significant relationship as the both values shows
the positive sign so in this case the hypothesis of mediation is accepted.
5. DISCUSSION
We use leader-member exchange theory to draw attention on leader- subordinate behavior and to test the model
of IL and IWB. In our research we investigate the direct relationship between Inclusive leadership and innovative
work behavior and test Psychological empowerment as an indirect relationship. Employees feel engaged themselves
in innovative behavior when he/she have good relationship with leader (Graen & Scandura, 1987). In this research we
found full relation and support between independent and dependent variable. And partial relation between the indirect
hypothesis.
6. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION
As many other studies this study also have some limitation. In this study the sample is collected from Pakistan
future studies generalize the study in other context like in western cultures (e.g Europe, America)..the cross sectional
data is collected in future longitudinal data can be used to analyze data more accurately. In this research one mediator
psychological empowerment is investigated, in future other mediation can be added to make this research more
precise.In sum this is the first study to examine the effect of psychological empowerment and independent variable
inclusive leadership and innovative work behavior in hospitals of Pakistan
REFERENCES
Afsar, B., F. Badir, Y., & Bin Saeed, B. (2014). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 114(8), 1270–1300

Vol. 9 (1), 2019 27

Hafeez, Paracha & Panatik Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment . . .
Ali

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to ‘the social psychology of creativity’. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-
step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research:A constructively
critical review of the state‐of‐the‐science. Journal of organizational Behavior, 25(2), 147-173.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior,
and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance, 25(1), 1–25
Ashford, S. J., Sutcliffe, K., & Christianson, M. (2009). Speaking up and speaking out: The leadership dynamics of
voice in organizations. In J. Greenberg, & M. S. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp.
175–202). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Baer, M. (2012), “Putting creativity to work: the implementation of creative ideas in organizations”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1102-1119.
Baer, M., & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process
innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of
Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(1), 45-68
Bandura, A. (1989), “Human agency in social cognitive theory”, American Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 9, pp. 1175-
1184
Basadur, M. (2004). Leading others to think innovatively together: Creative leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
15(1), 103–121.
Basu, R., & Green, S. G. (1997). Leader‐member exchange and transformational leadership: An empirical examination
of innovative behaviors in leader‐member dyads. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(6), 477–499.
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(4), 573–579.
Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in
organizations (Vol. 2, pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Braun, S., Peus, C.,Weisweiler, S. and Frey, D. (2013), “Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team
performance: a multilevel mediation model of trust”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 270-283.
Business Research, 62(4), 461–473.
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.
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.
Costigan, R. D., Insinga, R. C., Jason Berman, J., Ilter, S. S., Kranas, G., & Kureshov, V. A. (2006). A cross-cultural
study of supervisory trust. International Journal of Manpower, 27(8), 764–787.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–462
Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor
procedures. Educational and psychological measurement, 64(3), 391-418.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of
management, 31(6), 874-900.
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and innovation
management, 19(1), 23-36.
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., & Hootegem, G. V. (2012). Mainstreaming innovation in Europe – Findings on
employee innovation and workplace learning from Belgium. Lifelong Learning in Europe (LLinE), 17(4), 1–
20
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., De Witte, H., Niesen, W., & Van Hootegem, G. (2014). On the relation of job
insecurity, job autonomy, innovative work behaviour and the mediating effect of work engagement.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(3), 318–330.
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., Vandekerckhove, S., & Hootegem, G. V. (2012). Job design and innovative work
behavior: Enabling innovation through active or low-strain jobs? HIVA - K.U. Leuven, CeSO, Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven. Available at SSRN 2158618.
Gerybadze, A., Hommel, U., Reiners, H. W., & Thomaschewski, D. (Eds.). (2010). Innovation and international
corporate growth. Heidelberg: Springer
Gong, Y., Cheung, S. Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J. C. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity integration
Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in organizational
behavior.

Vol. 9 (1), 2019 28

International Journal of
Management Research and
Emerging Sciences

Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal
of
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation
at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts, 5(1), 90.
Hirak, R., Peng, A. C., Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2012). Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit
performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. The Leadership Quarterly,
23(1), 107–117.
Hollander, E. (2012). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. New York: Routledge
Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. New York: Routledge.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277.
Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of
Occupational and organizational psychology, 73(3), 287-302.
Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative
Javed, B., Naqvi, S. M. M. R., Khan, A. K., Arjoon, S., & Tayyeb, H. H. (2017). Impact of inclusive leadership on
innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety. Journal of Management & Organization, 1-20.
Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003), “The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational
innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 525-
544.
Kanter, R. M. (1988). Three tiers for innovation research. Communication Research, 15(5), 509-523.
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship
between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6),
785–804.
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological inquiry, 14(1), 1-26.
Kessel, M., Hannemann-Weber, H., & Kratzer, J. (2012). Innovative work behavior in healthcare: The benefit of
operational guidelines in the treatment of rare diseases. Health policy, 105(2-3), 146-153.
Kessel, M., Kratzer, J., & Schultz, C. (2012). Psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and creative performance in
healthcare teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2), 147–157.
Klijn, M., & Tomic, W. (2010). A review of creativity within organizations from a psychological perspective. Journal
of Management Development, 29(4), 322–343.
Liden, R. C., Sparrowe, R. T., & Wayne, S. J. (1997). Leader-member exchange theory: The past and potential for the
future. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 47–120.
Liu, D., Liao, H., & Loi, R. (2012). The dark side of leadership: A three-level investigation of the cascading effect of
abusive supervision on employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1187–1212.
Liu, J., Liu, X. and Zeng, X. (2011), “Does transactional leadership count for team innovativeness?The moderating
role of emotional labor and the mediating role of team efficacy”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 282-298.
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvador, R. B. (2009). How low does ethical leadership
flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2009). A word to the wise: How managers and policy-makers can
encourage employees to report wrongdoing. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(3), 379–396.
Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of
Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional
status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(7), 941–966
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating
role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(6), 1412–1426.
Piansoongnern, O. (2016). Chinese leadership and its impacts on innovative work behavior of the Thai employees.
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(1), 15–27.
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P.C., Slattery, T. and Sardessai, R. (2005), “Determinants of innovative work behavior:
development and test of an integrated model”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp.
142-150.

Vol. 9 (1), 2019 29

Hafeez, Paracha & Panatik Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment . . .
Ali

Reuvers, M., Van Engen, M.L., Vinkenburg, C.J. and Wilson-Evered, E. (2008), “Transformational leadership and
innovative work behavior: exploring the relevance of gender differences”, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 227-244.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in
the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in
the
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1998), “Following the leader in R and D: the joint effect of subordinate problem-solving
style and leader-member relations on innovative behavior”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004), “What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can
foster or hinder creativity”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 33-53.
Shalley, C.E. and Gilson, L.L. (2004), “What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors that can
foster or hinder creativity”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 33-53.
Sharifirad, M. S. (2013). Transformational leadership, innovative work behavior, and employee well-being. Global
Business Perspectives, 1(3), 198–225.
Sharifirad, M. S. (2013). Transformational leadership, innovative work behavior, and employee well-being. Global
Business Perspectives, 1(3), 198–225.
Sharifirad, M. S., & Ataei, V. (2012). Organizational culture and innovation culture: Exploring the relationships
between constructs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33(5), 494–517.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity
in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262–1289
Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013), “Translating team creativity to innovation implementation the role of team
composition and climate for innovation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 684-708.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995), “Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1442-1465
Spurk, D., & Niessen, C. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work involvement.
The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 456–465
Struwig, M., Struwig, F. W., & Stead, G. B. (2001). Planning, reporting & designing research. Pearson South Africa.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’ model of intrinsic
task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-681.
Tierney, P. (2008). Leadership and employee creativity. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of
Organizational Creativity (pp. 95–123). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The
relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620.
Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water (Vol. 216).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Van de Ven, A.H. (1986), “Central problems in the management of innovation”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No.
5, pp. 590-607.
Van Knippenberg, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2003), “A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations”,
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 pp. 245-297.
Wang, X. H. F., Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., & Janssen, O. (2015). Understanding employee innovative behavior: Integrating
the social network and leader–member exchange perspectives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(3),
403–420.
West, M.A. (2002), “Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of creativity and innovation
implementation in work groups”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 355-387.
workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

Vol. 9 (1), 2019 30

International Journal of
Management Research and
Emerging Sciences

Woschke, T., & Haase, H. (2016). Enhancing new product de

Volume 9, Issue 1, 2019

ISSN: 2223-5604

International Journal
of Management Research and
Emerging Sciences
E-ISSN: 2313-7738

Published by: The Superior College Lahore, Pakistan

Recognized by: Government of Pakistan (HEC) “Y” Category

velopment capabilities of small-and medium-sized enterprises through managerial innovations. The Journal
of High Technology Management Research, 27(1), 53-64.
Yeh-Yun Lin, C., & Liu, F. C. (2012). A cross-level analysis of organizational creativity climate and perceived
innovation: The mediating effect of work motivation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15(1).

Vol. 9 (1), 2019 31