Endnotes

Regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between managers' inclusive leadership behaviours and employees' experiences of inclusion. R² = .53, F(1, 431) = 484.11, p < .001.
In separate regression analyses, employee experiences of inclusion significantly predicted team problem solving [R² = 52, F(1, 431) = 458.98, p < .001], employee work engagement [R² = .52, F(1, 431) = 463.72, p < .001], intent to stay [R²> = .12, F(1, 431) = 59.78, p < .001], and employee innovation [R²= .33, F(1, 431) = 213.19, p < .001].
Gender: An extremely small sample size indicated trans, nonbinary, or "prefer not to say" for gender, and for this reason we cannot provide their frequencies on these variables. Ethnicity: An extremely small sample size indicated "other race" or "prefer not to say" for ethnicity, and for this reason we cannot provide their frequencies on these variables. Respondents who identified with a racial or ethnic group other than White were coded as ethnic minorities. Sexual Orientation: An extremely small sample size indicated "prefer not to say" for sexual orientation, and for this reason we cannot provide their frequencies on these variables. Transgender individuals were not included because this question pertains only to sexual orientation, not gender identity. The difference between those who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, or asexual and those who did not for psychological safety: latitude was significant, X² (1, N = 415) = 4.54, p < .05. Disability Status: An extremely small sample size indicated "prefer not to say" for disability and for this reason we cannot provide their frequencies on these variables. The difference between those who had a disability and those who did not for trusted was significant, X² (1, N = 420) = 5.01, p < .05. The difference between those who had a disability and those who did not for psychological safety: latitude was significant, X² (1, N = 420) = 9.83, p < .01. Job Level: The difference between managers and non-managers for valued was significant, X² (1, N = 433) = 6.70, p < .01. The difference between managers and non-managers for trusted was significant, X² (1, N = 433) = 6.51 p < .05. The difference between managers and non-managers for authentic was significant, X² (1, N = 433) = 7.68 p < .01. The difference between managers and non-managers for psychological safety: latitude was significant, X² (1, N = 433) = 4.67, p < .05. The difference between managers and non-managers for psychological safety: risk-taking was significant, X² (1, N= 433) = 6.81, p < .01. Ethnicity and Gender: Respondents who identified with a racial/ethnic group other than White were coded as ethnic minorities. The difference between ethnic minority women and all other groups for authentic was significant, X² (1, N = 328) = 6.65, p < .01. The difference between White women and all other groups for psychological safety: latitude was significant, X² (1, N = 328) = 4.86, p < .05. Job Level and Gender: The difference between men in non-management positions and all other groups for valued was significant, X² (1, N = 424) = 5.05, p < .05. The difference between men in non-management positions and all other groups for trusted was significant, X² (1, N = 424) = 5.97, p < .05. The difference between women in non-management positions and all other groups for psychological safety: risk-taking was significant, X² (1, N = 424) = 8.20, p < .01. Job Level and Ethnicity: Respondents who identified with an ethnic group other than White were coded as ethnic minorities. The difference between White people in management positions and all other groups for valued was significant, X² (1, N = 331) = 5.69, p < .05. The difference between White people in management positions and all other groups for trusted was significant, X² (1, N = 331) = 8.44, p < .01. The difference between ethnic minorities in non-management positions and all other groups for authentic was significant, X² (1, N = 331) = 5.10, p < .05. The difference between White people in management positions and all other groups for psychological safety: risk-taking was significant, X² (1, N = 331) = 4.91 p < .05.
Statistical Notes: p-values that are greater than .01 but less than .05 should be interpreted as marginally significant yet also meaningful in denoting group differences, particularly considering sample sizes. Demographic numbers may not sum to 100% due to rounding or participants identifying with multiple genders, races, or ethnicities. See Getting real about inclusive leadership for original concepts and methodology.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Getting real about inclusive leadership – Australia

This is Supporter-exclusive content.