Next Article in Journal
Damping of Dry Sand in Resonant Column-Torsional Simple Shear Device
Previous Article in Journal
Probing the Pyrolysis Process of Rice Straw over a “Dual-Catalyst Bed” for the Production of Fuel Gases and Value-Added Chemicals
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Global Research on Employee Engagement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 14
10.3390/su151411059
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Inclusive Leadership and Psychological Contract Fulfilment: A Source of Proactivity and Well-Being for Knowledge Workers

by
Anna Rogozińska-Pawełczyk
Faculty of Economics and Sociology, University of Lodz, 90-136 Lodz, Poland
Sustainability 2023, 15(14), 11059; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411059
Submission received: 24 May 2023 / Revised: 11 July 2023 / Accepted: 12 July 2023 / Published: 14 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Trends in Organizational Psychology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Proactivity is a particularly important attribute of knowledge-intensive companies, where work that requires enhancing the potential of knowledge-intensive employees in a sustainable working environment is crucial. Another important challenge for these firms is to account for the increasing importance of the functioning of the cognitive mechanisms leading to the increased well-being of knowledge workers following the implementation of a psychological contract. The aim of this article is to identify the relationship between inclusive leadership, the fulfilment of a psychological contract, two dimensions of well-being (workplace and life-related well-being), and knowledge workers’ proactivity. Based on survey data collected using the CAWI method from 1000 knowledge workers employed in Polish companies in the business services sector, the research hypotheses proposed in this study were tested using a stepwise equation-modelling (SEM) technique, which resulted in a model containing all the main constructs. The results obtained indicate that inclusive leadership positively relates to the fulfilment of the psychological contract. Furthermore, the fulfilment of the psychological contract positively associates proactive working behavior with the wellbeing of knowledge workers. Along with proactive work behavior, two dimensions of well-being were examined as outcome variables. Our analysis also shows that knowledge-intensive organizations, intending to develop the proactivity of their employees and nurture a high level of well-being in their lives and in the workplace, should ensure that they fulfil the expectations and obligations of the psychological contract. One way to achieve this is for managers to employ an inclusive management style, which supports an atmosphere of a safe working environment in a diverse setting and allows employees to feel comfortable sharing their opinions and ideas. The study of inclusive leadership in the context of knowledge-intensive organizations provides human resource professionals and employee managers with important insights into how inclusive leadership can effectively contribute to the psychological contract, which, consequently, will lead to proactive work behavior and improve employees’ workplace and life-related well-being.

1. Introduction

One of the contemporary issues in the field of sustainable human resource management (HRM) is to account for the increasing importance of the functioning of the cognitive mechanisms leading to the promotion of knowledge workers’ well-being and their adoption of proactive work behavior (PWB) [1].
Well-being, which is understood as a person’s subjectively perceived satisfaction with the physical, psychological, and social state of his or her own life, is disrupted whenever a person experiences sadness and abandonment or general pain due to work-related stresses [2]. Currently, researchers and practitioners in the field of business management and organization agree that in an environment of advanced technology and innovative digital advancements, knowledge organizations should adopt transparent communication practices, new leave policies, emotional and professional coaching practices, online learning programs to allow employees to stay up to date and learn new unique skills, and mental health support programs to enhance overall employee well-being (EWB) [3]. To date, research has shown that the psychological contract (PC) is a belief system representing an individual’s perception of his or her own and others’ obligations, defined as duties or responsibilities, which he or she feels obliged to perform [4]. This means that the PC captures the wide range of elements that make up the employer–employee exchange, making it a valuable component in employee well-being research [5].
Proactivity refers to a broad class of anticipatory behaviors with the aim of bringing about changes among employees in relation to themselves and their work environment [6]. The key aspects of proactive work behavior are acting consciously, deliberately, and methodologically while anticipating the direction of action’s impact in the future. Furthermore, previous research shows that proactivity is considered a key way in which knowledge workers can nurture and manage their resources for future challenges [7]. An employee’s effectiveness in implementing PWB does not depend solely on his or her knowledge and skills; it is also a function of the actual and perceived support received from superiors in fulfilling job duties, which gives rise to its analysis in the fulfilment of the psychological contract (PCF). In this context, the PCF becomes a driver of employees’ PWB and workplace and life-related well-being.
Inclusive leadership requires the inclusion in the leadership processes of potentially every member of an organization who, by developing themselves, can contribute, through interaction with their supervisor and other employees, to the development of others and the organization as a whole [8]. It is also argued that managers with an inclusive management style, i.e., valuing employees’ input and inviting them to collaborate, create a psychologically safe environment in which employees feel comfortable proactively sharing their opinions and ideas [9]. Creating an inclusive work environment is a very important challenge in shaping perceptions of the psychological contract (PC) [8], i.e., perceived promises and obligations in the organizational space. IL is a person-centered approach; relationships, emotions, and social justice are at the center of IL [10] and can thus be associated with PCF.
While human capital is widely recognized as a valuable resource that supports the long-term success of organizations [11], little is known about how IL and PCF are related to the adoption of PWB by employees working in the Business Services Sector (BSS) and their maintenance of workplace and life-related well-being. Currently, research focusing on the relation of IL to PCF is rare. Moreover, previous research in the area of PCF mainly considers PCF to be a mediator, e.g., in studies on job satisfaction, employee commitment, and innovative work behavior [12,13,14,15]. However, there is a lack of research on the direct effect of IL on PCF. In addition, there is still no clarity in the literature on the direct relationship between PCF, PWB, workplace well-being (WWB), and life-related well-being (LWB). Therefore, this study highlights the key links between PCF and employees’ uptake of PWB and their sense of WWB and LWB.
This study contributes to the existing knowledge base in five ways. First, the study tests the direct mechanism behind the relationship between IL, PCF, two dimensions of well-being (namely, WWB and LWB), and knowledge workers’ proactivity. Second, IL is shown to be directly positively associated with PCF. Third, empirical evidence suggesting that PCF supports PWB, specifically the well-being of knowledge workers, is provided. Fourth, this study extends the understanding of the PC and IL concepts by pointing to a new ‘inclusive’ framework of knowledge workers’ interactions to initiate their proactivity and support their well-being. Fifth, the direct mechanism outlined is tested in the context of the BSS sector, thus enriching the theories of PC and IL. Sixth, the survey of a representative research sample of 1000 knowledge workers provides an indication that BSS executives should pay more attention to building relationships in the workplace and giving due importance to maintaining employee well-being.

2. Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Inclusive Leadership and the Fulfilment of the Psychological Contract

Present day managers play a key role in leading employee-facing activities that create a climate of inclusion in the workplace and contribute to the effective initiation and maintenance of interpersonal relationships. Inclusive leadership is defined as a leadership style that focuses on the accessibility, openness, and approachability of managers as well as on prioritizing the well-being of employees, listening to their individual needs and expectations, and supporting their participation in shared decision making [16,17]. In defining the concept in question, Nembhard and Edmondson [9] emphasize that it specifically refers to the creation of a safe environment in a diverse setting where all team members can be themselves. Thus, it can be assumed that inclusive leadership is more humanistic than other leadership styles because it is a person-centered approach as opposed to an organization-centered approach [18].
According to research in this field, IL prioritizes the uniqueness of employees and places greater emphasis on cultivating, collaborating, and developing reciprocal relationships [19,20,21]. Regarding this issue, Ferdman and Deane [22] argue that IL practices not only shape the experiences of individuals but also the form and quality of the relationships employees establish with their employers. Furthermore, specific leadership styles, including IL styles, can influence employees’ PCs [21,23]. This is supported by research indicating that through leadership, managers contribute to improving the psychological conditions of employees in the workplace [23,24,25]. Considering IL, which focuses on fostering employees’ uniqueness, providing employees with autonomy, enhancing their sense of belonging to the team, building relationships and trust within the team, valuing employee contributions, etc., this manuscript assumes that this type of leadership is positively related to PCF. With this in mind, the following hypothesis is posited:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): 
Inclusive leadership positively relates to the fulfilment of the psychological contract.

2.2. Psychological Contract Fulfilment and Proactive Work Behavior

The roots of the PC can be traced back to Social Exchange Theory (SET) [26], in which the common relationship between employees and managers functions through meaning and reciprocity. From the multitude of definitions found in the literature [27,28,29], it can be clearly inferred that the PC is the result of implicit and unspoken norms that characterize the interaction between an employee and their employer. The idiosyncratic connection established outlines a series of promises, expectations, and obligations made by both parties to the relationship. Following the theoretical considerations of Rousseau [29], the PC defines, on the one hand, how an employee builds a long-term perspective of job security and opportunities for individual development and, on the other hand, how an employer seeks to ensure their employee’s commitment to the interests of the organization. In their organizational activities, both employees and employers strive to match their expectations with what they receive from the other party. The degree of alignment between the fulfilment of mutual expectations translates into both the employee’s performance at work and the employee’s perception of how much the employer values the individual as an employee [25]. Consequently, what employers pay attention to has a significant impact on how employees direct their efforts, how well they perform their tasks, and what goals they achieve [24] while adopting certain attitudes and behaviors such as organizational commitment, work engagement, trust, or organizational citizenship behaviors [30]. As Gadomska-Lila and Rogozińska-Pawełczyk [31] emphasize, employees’ attitudes and work behaviors are strongly influenced by the PC. When employees feel listened to and valued, they willingly undertake pro-organizational activities through their own initiative. PWB, therefore, emerges as a result of employees’ sense of motivation, satisfaction, and commitment.
When employees believe that their employer understands them properly and behaves in accordance with their socio-emotional needs, employees become more engaged and are more likely to go ‘above and beyond’ the demands and expectations of their job [32]. Accordingly, managers view employee proactivity as self-initiated, productive efforts exerted by an employee to induce organizational changes at the functional level to improve the way in which work is accomplished [33]. Such behaviors may include improved work procedures [7], soliciting feedback [34], and proactively adapting to new environments [35], among others.
Several studies in this field indicate that there is a positive relationship between the PC and employees’ work behavior [24,25,36,37]. As noted in the literature, the fulfilment of assumptions derived from the PC can lead to the development of desired outcomes and work results [38]. Based on the above research indicating that supporting employees, respecting and trusting them, and listening to their individual needs can enhance their behavioral responses, leading to PWB, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): 
Fulfilment of the psychological contract positively associates with proactive work behavior.

2.3. Psychological Contract Fulfilment and Employee Well-Being

The most general term for well-being refers to how individuals evaluate their lives, including their mental states, social life, health, work environments, and corresponding material issues [39]. The concept of well-being refers not only to the absence of illness or disease but also to subjective, psychological, social, and physical health, all of which can have a profound relationship with employability, productivity, satisfaction, and security in the workplace [40]. Well-being is a positive state related to the experience of emotions and the cognitive appraisal of our lives [41]. The importance of well-being is beneficial for individuals, organizations, and society as a whole [42]. As suggested by Carolan et al. [43], employees that feel high levels of well-being are characterized by enthusiasm for life and are actively and productively engaged with others and in social institutions. Since well-being is a multidimensional and multifaceted construct, there is a lack of consensus among researchers regarding employee well-being and workplace well-being. Therefore, the concept of well-being will be analyzed in this manuscript in relation to two areas: work and life. Workplace well-being is defined as all aspects of working life, ranging from the quality and safety of the work environment to how employees feel at work and how they cope with the relationships they have and the challenges they face [44]. In an age of knowledge-intensive organizations, supporting employees, providing them with autonomy, and engaging with them not only improve their productivity but also enhance their well-being [45]. According to Zheng et al. [46], life-related well-being includes personal care, reflecting the employee’s personal emotions, and family care, reflecting the problems of family life. When employees feel the promises made by an organization are fulfilled, positive energy is generated, which translates into their overall life-related well-being [47].
Research on well-being is on an upward trajectory, and many scholars have made significant contributions to the understanding of the concept. For example, researchers [39,41,48,49,50] have investigated the financial, social, spiritual, and socio-psychological well-being of consumers; the emotional and psychological well-being of employees; and mental well-being and physical well-being in general. Previous research on well-being [1,51,52] indicates that it is related to feeling certain emotions in work situations, experiencing job satisfaction, evaluating the meaning of work, job engagement, job crafting, or feeling meaningful at work. However, as also noted by several researchers [53,54,55], there still has not been a description of the process that leads to increased levels of employee well-being following the establishment of PCF. Based on the above theoretical quandaries, the following hypothesis, together with two specific hypotheses, was developed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): 
Fulfilment of the psychological contract positively associates with employee well-being.
Hypothesis 3a (H3a): 
Fulfilment of the psychological contract positively relates to workplace well-being.
Hypothesis 3b (H3b): 
Fulfilment of the psychological contract positively relates to life-related well-being.
In this study, a conceptual model depicting the aforementioned relationships was developed (Figure 1).

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Procedure and Participants of the Study

The study population was composed of organizations representing knowledge-intensive industries, with an emphasis on service subsectors that employ scientific and technological knowledge, i.e., research and development (R&D), engineering, IT, and ICT services. This group includes entities providing modern business services, including business service centers (BPO, SSC/GBS, IT, and R&D), of which 1513 were operating in Poland in Q1 of 2022 (2/3 of which were owned by foreign investors) [56]. The specificity of work with a high degree of complexity and variability requires employees to make additional efforts in the form of engaging in activities that transcend the roles associated with the workplace (extra-role behaviors). Moreover, due to the nature of the work, there may be significant opportunities to engage in such behavior. Proactive activities can build both the task-related and contextual efficiency and productivity of employees, for which the psychological contract plays a large role. Therefore, this study included organizations in knowledge-intensive industries (with an emphasis on services) in which employees who are providers of specialized and unique knowledge in companies specializing in creating innovative services for external contractors are employed.
The analysis was based on the results of an in-house study, namely, a nationwide questionnaire survey conducted using the CATI technique (n = 1000). The estimation error was 4.38% in both cases, which allowed for the results to be generalized to the Polish BSS general population.
As this study used a structured survey questionnaire, it became necessary to determine whether the data were free of common method bias. To this end, Harman’s one-factor test was performed, grouping all items into a single factor for the test of common method bias [57]. The results of the calculations were satisfactory, as the total variance of the factor calculations was no more than 35.2% or less than 50% [58]. Thus, the results were free from common method bias [57].
PS IMAGO 27-IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0 statistical software [59] was used to conduct the quantitative CATI survey, while WarpPLS 7.0 was used to perform structural equation modelling to verify and evaluate the hypothesized measurement model [60]. Selected characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Research Instruments

The research procedure began with the construction of a measurement instrument. The measurement instrument used for this study consisted of a battery of tests combined into a single survey questionnaire in the form of a computer-assisted telephone interview technique (CATI). The study variables were measured using a set of items derived from adaptations of existing research tools developed by Ashikali [61]; Rousseau and Tijoriwala [62]; Guest and Conway [63]; Parker and Collins [64]; and Zheng and colleagues [46]. As all measurement tools were available in the English language literature, they required a process of cultural adaptation prior to the study, as recommended by Behling and Law [65]. Cultural adaptation began with translating the English versions of the tests into Polish. Three independent judges competent in English philology, work and management psychology, and statistical methods were then asked to complete the questionnaires in the original version. In the next step, a test–retest procedure was carried out, and r-Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between all items found in the measurement tools for both the English and Polish versions. All items achieved a statistically significant correlation value of up to 0.001, and the entire aggregated survey questionnaire achieved an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α = 0.82).
Inclusive Leadership (IL) was measured using the Inclusive Leadership Scale [61]. Since previous studies have found discrepancies between managers’ and employees’ assessments of leadership, the use of aggregated employee ratings has been suggested [66]. Therefore, one aggregated measure measuring IL was used to assess leadership behavior exhibited by knowledge workers; the measure had 13 items. Sample items included statements such as “My leaders encourage me to discuss diverse viewpoints and problem-solving perspectives with my colleagues”. Respondents answered each item using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1—“strongly disagree” to 5—“strongly agree”. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reached a high level of reliability (α = 0.87).
Psychological contract fulfilment (PCF) was measured by determining the extent to which expectations and obligations under the psychological contract were fulfilled by the employee and the employer. All 17 items used to measure the degree of PCF were adapted from the work of Rousseau and Tijoriwala [62] and Guest and Conway [63]. The extent to which an employee fulfilled the psychological contract was measured using two groups of items: “How would you rate your supervisor’s fulfilment of promises and commitments?” (8 items) and “To what extent do you fulfil the promises and commitments you have made to your supervisor?” (9 items). Respondents completing this part of the survey questionnaire were asked to indicate the extent to which they felt that they and their employer had fulfilled the terms of the psychological contract. Responses were given on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1—“not at all fulfilled” to 7—“completely fulfilled”. The assessment of PCF had a high degree of reliability, with an alpha-Cronbach’s coefficient of α = 0.81.
Proactive work behavior (PWB): a set of 24 items derived from adaptations of existing survey tools was used to measure the research variables, which were selected based on a literature review taking into account the 3-factor model of proactive work behaviors developed by Parker and Collins [64]. The measurement tool was used to diagnose the respondents’ adoption of proactive behaviors, which were generally understood as using their initiative and being self-advocative, given the decentralized nature of the work environment and the pressure to innovate. PWB was measured as the sum of the scores obtained for all items. A higher score indicates more frequent presentation of proactive behavior at work by knowledge workers. Items in the questionnaire included statements such as “at work I take the initiative first on various issues”, “to improve my work I come up with new ideas and changes in procedures”, and “I come up with and implement ideas that seem to benefit the company and customers”. A 7-point Likert scale was used as a method of response, where 1 meant “never” and 7 denoted “always”. The reliability of the tool was as follows: α = 0.79.
Employee well-being (ELW): an adaptation of the Employee Well-being Questionnaire developed by Zheng and colleagues [46] was used to assess employee well-being. Employee well-being (EWB) was measured using 2 subscales: workplace well-being and life-related well-being. The first subscale includes six items, including: “I find real pleasure in my work” and “I can always find ways to enrich my work”, which refer to employees’ work. This subscale is referred to as WWB. A high score indicates a high degree of satisfaction with one’s workplace. The second subscale was also measured via six items, and example items include “My life is very enjoyable” or “I am close to my dreams in most aspects of my life, which are relevant to employees’ lives”. This subscale is referred to as the LWB. Participants used a 7-point Likert scale (1 = “strongly disagree”; 7 = “strongly agree”) to respond to each item. The EWB scale showed a high level of internal consistency (α = 0.90).

4. Results

4.1. Statistical Analysis

This section first provides descriptive statistics. For this purpose, Pearson correlation calculations (including a test of significance) were carried out for all variables measured in this study. The distribution of the five variables used in this study is characterized by a low degree of variability (SD). The arithmetic mean and median indicate that the significance levels of the study variables are quite high and that the skewness of the distribution is of high strength. The correlations between the variables were found to be positive and statistically significant, as shown in Table 2. For the pairs of variables studied, the strength of the relationship was significantly high (*** p < 0.001), which provided a further basis for continuing the exploratory analyses.

4.2. Reliability and Validity Analysis

The statistical analysis was followed by an assessment of the metric properties of the tool used for this study, which confirmed its good properties. Both the assessment of inclusive leadership, the fulfilment of the psychological contract, proactive work behavior, and total employee well-being (variable EWB) and the two subscales of the subscales (WWB and LWB) had high reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient exceeded 0.7 in each case [67]. In order to evaluate the suitability of the data for further factor analysis and assess the fit of the model, two tests were performed, namely, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s sphericity tests [68], the results of which are shown in Table 3. The KMO value obtained is 0.788, ranging from 0.8 to 1, thus confirming the good properties of the data. Also, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity applied at a significance level of p < 0.001 indicated a reasonable application of factor analysis.

4.3. Measurement Model

The next stage of the analysis involved conducting a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood estimation to test the discriminant validity of the items of each construct (inclusive leadership, fulfilling the psychological contract, proactive work behavior, workplace well-being, and life-related well-being) at the individual level (n = 1000). The most common method used to estimate parameters in CFA models is maximum likelihood (ML) because of its attractive statistical properties (i.e., asymptotic unbiasedness, normality, consistency, and maximal efficiency) [69].
The model tested included a measurement of all five variables analyzed. The diagnostic statistics of the measurement and structural model showed that the fit of the data to the measurement model (external) was at an acceptable level within the application of the standardized mean squared residual (SRMR = 0.06). In contrast, an analysis of the overall predictive power of the structural (internal) model showed that the model had a good model fit, as illustrated by the following statistics: chi-square test (χ2 = 1845.7; df = 953; χ2/df = 1.937) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = 0.059). The absolute goodness-of-fit index also presented good levels: GFI = 0.864; AGFI = 0.901. All recommended fit indices were significant and within acceptable limits [70], as shown in Table 4.
In the next stage of the analytical procedure, convergent and discriminant validity was examined. Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) coefficients were calculated to evaluate the reliability of the measurements. Analysis of the coefficients showed that all the measurements had a high level of measurement accuracy and were above CR/AVE/α > 0.5 and 0.70, respectively [71]. The analyses conducted proved that the positive square root of the AVE for each latent variable was found to be higher than the highest correlation with any other latent variable. Therefore, discriminant validity was established at the construct level. The details are presented in Table 5.

4.4. Structural Model

In order to test the research hypotheses derived from the literature and empirically validate the hypothesized research model, we carried out structural equation modelling (SEM) in a stepwise fashion, leading to a model containing all the main constructs under study. This method is often chosen because SEM can measure the direct effect of latent and observed variables [72]. The results indicate that all factor loadings have values above 0.5, and for many items (empirical indicators), they are close to 0.8 (Figure 2), thus confirming their high degree of association with the latent variable. In addition, for each variable, the coefficients are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 ** level. Therefore, the factor structure confirms the measurement model. The values obtained for the recommended fit indices showed a good fit between the data and the model and were as follows: χ2 = 1921.3, df = 1137, χ2 df = 1.689, CFI = 0.906, GFI = 0.872, AGFI = 0.913, RMSEA = 0.061, and SRMR = 0.074.
The results of the analysis, presented in Figure 2, showed that the model confirmed significant direct relationships between the study variables.
The results obtained support hypothesis H1, proving unequivocally that inclusive leadership (β = 0.65, p < 0.05) has a significant positive effect on the fulfilment of the psychological contract. Moreover, the fulfilment of the psychological contract significantly positively associated with proactive work behavior (β = 0.58, p < 0.05) as well as workplace well-being (β = 0.67, p < 0.05) and life-related well-being (β = 0.51, p < 0.05). Thus, hypotheses H2 and H3a and b were fulfilled. The results indicate that fulfilling the psychological contract has the greatest degree of relation to workplace well-being and a relatively smaller degree of relation to life-related well-being.

5. Discussion and Implications

The aim of this study was to obtain empirical evidence with which to explain the relationship between inclusive leadership, psychological contract fulfilment, and two dimensions of well-being (namely, workplace and life-related well-being) and knowledge worker proactivity. Data were collected from knowledge workers employed in BSS organizations. Structural equation modelling produced interesting findings that confirmed the research hypotheses.
The results of this study suggest that IL significantly contributes to PCF, which supports hypothesis H1. This can be explained by the occurrence of a strong sense of bonding between employees and the organization for which they work, trust in superiors, and healthy competition between knowledge associates. Research by Mansoor et al. [73] indicates that IL, which focuses on fostering employee uniqueness, acquiescing to flexible knowledge, sharing in the decision-making processes, reinforcing an employee’s sense of belonging to a team, building relationships and trust, and valuing the contributions employees make to their company, encourages employees to interact in different relational configurations to implement new actions and solutions without fear of consequences. Therefore, such inclusive behaviors exhibited by managers should be elicited to strengthen the employee–supervisor relationship and the employee–organization relationship [74].
The results also support hypothesis H2, which states that PCF is positively related to PWB. The findings regarding this relationship are consistent with those of other empirical studies [12,73,75]. The results indicate that it is an open relationship characterized by mutual trust between employee and employer that enhances individuals’ psychological ties to their workplace and triggers employees’ work-related proactivity. In addition, the fulfilment of PC leads to the induction of employee commitment and dedication to organizational issues focused on work improvement and innovation.
It was further found that employee well-being, i.e., indicators of workplace well-being and life-related well-being, were consequences of PCF. Thus, the results also support main hypothesis H3 and specific hypotheses H3a and H3b. The existing literature shows that PCF leads to work-related outcomes (work-related outcomes) [76,77], including positive employee well-being [8]. According to Meyer and Bartels [78], the information that organizations send to employees, which is related to the expectations and obligations imposed on them, often acts as a critical factor influencing their levels of workplace well-being and life-related well-being. Employees feeling a sense of reciprocity will receive continuing and extending the benefits from their work role, thereby generating positive emotions [79] and contributing to the development of workplace well-being. The results obtained also contribute to the understanding of the exchanges taking place within the employment relationship, in which there is a clear employee-organization link, in addition to, although with less of degree of relation, to the understanding of new findings on the relationship between PCF and life-related well-being. More recently, in support of the research presented here, Knapp et al. [80] described psychological contracts as inherently universal and suitable for analyzing exchange relationships that transcend specific employment circumstances and organizational boundaries, thus identifying individuals’ cognitive and affective evaluations of their lives and life satisfaction.
Knowledge diffusion, which is often equated with knowledge sharing, is also an important challenge associated with effective inclusive leadership. It is particularly important to source knowledge from the most valued employees with core competencies, who are called knowledge workers. Their knowledge is an excellent basis for the knowledge of other individual employees and the organizational knowledge of the organization. The knowledge-sharing behaviors evoked by effective inclusive leadership are both intrinsically and extrinsically motivating for knowledge workers, resulting in their emotional attachment and higher levels of identification and commitment, which, in turn, lead to increased levels of proactivity and well-being. The literature suggests that individuals come to organizations with certain desires and skills in order to satisfy their basic needs [81]. When an organization, through effective inclusive leadership, provides them with opportunities to have their needs met, they reciprocate, in fulfilment of the psychological contract, with behaviors and attitudes such as proactivity and well-being. This is supported by research findings indicating that knowledge-sharing practices are typically initiated by organizations and leaders [82] but also involve individual employees and develop through actions proactively initiated by them [83] Furthermore, among knowledge workers, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to share knowledge promotes higher levels of well-being. Knowledge-sharing behaviors that are intrinsically rewarding evoke positive emotions, leading to the realization of positive interpersonal relationships with individuals and organizational units [81]. On the other hand, an extrinsic motivation for knowledge sharing plays a key role in triggering the cognitive processes of cost–benefit assessments and proactive action for the organization [84].
These findings enrich the literature by indicating that employees’ positive associations with inclusive leadership can enhance the fulfilment of their mutual relationships. In turn, employees’ positive associations with fulfilling the psychological contract can stimulate proactive work behaviors and enhance knowledge workers’ work-life-related well-being.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

The theoretical contribution of this study is primarily manifested in four aspects. Firstly, this study tests a direct mechanism linking IL, PCF, PWB, WWB, and LWB. It proves that inclusive leadership positively associates with the fulfilment of the psychological contract. In addition, fulfilling the psychological contract is positively associated with proactive working behavior and the two analyzed dimensions of knowledge worker well-being.
Secondly, this study integrates individual variables (psychological contract fulfilment), organizational variables (inclusive leadership), and knowledge workers’ attitudes (proactive work behavior and employee well-being), which enriches the existing literature on the mechanism of interaction and extends researchers’ theoretical perspectives.
Thirdly, this study extends the understanding of the concept of PCF, indicating a new ‘inclusive’ framework for the interactions of individuals and teams but also interactions at the organizational level contributing to stimulating proactive work behavior and employee well-being. Finally, the model was tested in the specific context of the functioning of Polish organizations in the knowledge-intensive industry, thus enriching IL theory.

5.2. Practical Implications

The empirical evidence from this study also has practical implications. First of all, the results of this study can guide the ‘inclusive’ actions of BSS companies, wherein knowledge-intensive employee empowerment work is crucial.
Secondly, when managers who value employees’ contributions and invite them to collaborate create a psychologically safe environment in which the employees feel comfortable sharing their opinions and ideas, this contributes to filling its psychological contract. Therefore, organizations, managers, and supervisors need to understand the importance of meeting expectations as part of fulfilling the psychological contract.
Furthermore, the research carried out points out that when comparing PCF with WWB and LWB, PCF was related to WWB to a greater extent. In view of this, human resource professionals and managers managing knowledge workers should ensure that direct supervisors are trained to support their employees in feeling comfortable proactively creating and sharing their ideas and innovative solutions. It is also the supervisor’s responsibility to create an environment where their employees treat each other with respect in an atmosphere of a safe working environment in a diverse setting.
Fourthly, the study of PCF in the context of knowledge-intensive organizations unequivocally shows that when an employee feels safe at work; is encouraged to exchange, discuss, and utilize the diverse qualities of the workforce; and is fully supported in terms of participation with respect to meeting needs for individuation and belonging, this automatically leads to improved life-related and work well-being and an increase in proactive work behavior.

5.3. Limitations and Further Research

The current study also has several limitations that need to be taken into account in further investigations. Firstly, this study was only conducted on Polish knowledge-intensive organizations from the BSS. This group was representative of Poland; thus, conclusions regarding the areas studied can only be made with respect to this country and this specifically selected research group. In the future, similar comparative research could be conducted in other European countries with a similar organizational culture. It would also be worth extending the scope of this study to ascertain how the relationships between the analyzed variables are perceived by employees of organizations from other sectors of the economy, e.g., research, social care, justice, state administration, tourism, or health care.
Secondly, data were collected on knowledge-intensive companies operating solely under Polish cultural conditions. Therefore, it would be advisable to conduct further research in other national contexts, thereby providing the possibility to generalize the results to other countries.
Thirdly, two dimensions of employee well-being were included in this study. In future research, more dimensions of well-being can be identified and tested, such as emotional well-being, subjective well-being, social well-being, or psychological well-being. Similarly, the three factors of proactive work behavior, i.e., proactive person–environment fit behavior, proactive work behavior, and proactive strategic behavior, as recommended by Parker and Collins [64], can be tested separately in relation to the implementation of the psychological contract.
Fourthly, this study only considered inclusive leadership, which is related to the fulfilment of the psychological contract by knowledge workers. Future research can test how other types of leadership, e.g., transactional or educational, are related to the fulfilment of the psychological contract by knowledge workers employed in the BSS.
Fifthly, despite the focus on the relationship of IL with FPC and the relationship of FPC with PWB, PWB, WWB, and LWB, we recognize that other non-research variables, e.g., sociodemographic variables such as gender, age, or job position, may be crucial in the construction of PWB and with regard to the well-being of knowledge workers.
Sixthly, this study did not consider moderating and mediating mechanisms through which any causal pathways could be established. In addition, further research using, for example, longitudinal studies is recommended, which could reveal a more precise picture of the relationships found and would allow for the directions of causality to be explored.

6. Conclusions

In summary, this study focuses on identifying the relationship between inclusive leadership, psychological contract fulfilment, and two dimensions of well-being (namely, workplace and life-related well-being) and proactive work behavior. Based on the literature review, a hypothetical model was constructed that predicted the direct effects on the variables studied. The direct effect was intended to illuminate the positive relationship between IL and PCF and the direct effect of PCF assumptions on PWB. The assumed direct mechanism was also intended to illustrate the relationship between PCF and well-being and PWB.

Funding

This research was funded by the Polish National Science Centre Grant number 2018/31/B/HS4/01284.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and was approved by the Economy and Sociology Institutional Review Board 7/2022/FT.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the A.R.-P.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ruokolainen, M.; Mauno, S.; Diehl, M.R.; Tolvanen, A.; Mäkikangas, A.; Kinnunen, U. Patterns of psychological contract and their relationships to employee well-being and in-role performance at work: Longitudinal evidence from university employees. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2018, 29, 2827–2850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Diener, E.; Oishi, S.; Tay, L. Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2018, 2, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ghosh, S. Why the Emotional Well-Being of Your Employees Should Be a Top Priority during COVID-19; Tata Consultancy Services: Mumbai, India, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Rousseau, D.M.; Hansen, S.D.; Tomprou, M. A dynamic phase model of psychological contract processes. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 1081–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cassar, V.; Buttigieg, S. Psychological contract breach, organizational justice and emotional well-being. Pers. Rev. 2014, 44, 217–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Grant, A.M.; Ashford, S.J. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 2008, 28, 3–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Strauss, K.; Parker, S.K. Intervening to enhance proactivity in organizations: Improving the present or changing the future. J. Manag. 2018, 44, 1250–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ahmad, I.; Zafar, M.A. Impact of psychological contract fulfillment on organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 30, 1001–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nembhard, I.M.; Edmondson, A.C. Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 941–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Byrd, M.Y. Creating a culture of inclusion and belongingness in remote work environments that sustains meaningful work. Hum. Resour. Dev. 2022, 25, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Korkmaz, A.V.; van Engen, M.L.; Knappert, L.; Schalk, R. About and beyond leading uniqueness and belongingness: A systematic review of inclusive leadership research. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2022, 32, 100894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bhatnagar, J.; Biswas, S. The mediator analysis of psychological contract: Relationship with employee engagement and organisational commitment. Int. J. Indian Cult. Bus. Manag. 2012, 5, 644–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rogozińska-Pawełczyk, A. Work satisfaction and the relationship between the psychological contract and an employee’s intention to quit. The results of a survey of public administration employees in Poland. J. East Eur. Manag. 2020, 25, 301–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nayak, S.; Jena, D.; Patnaik, S. Mediation framework connecting knowledge contract, psychological contract, employee retention, and employee satisfaction: An empirical study. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2021, 13, 18479790211004007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aslan, H.; Mert, I.S.; Sen, C. The effect of inclusive leadership on the work engagement: An empirical study from Turkey. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 169–178. [Google Scholar]
  16. Carmeli, A.; Reiter-Palmon, R.; Ziv, E. Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creat. Res. J. 2010, 22, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Randel, A.E.; Galvin, B.M.; Shore, L.M.; Ehrhart, K.H.; Chung, B.G.; Dean, M.A.; Kedharnath, U. Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Hum. Resour. Manag Rev. 2018, 28, 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. You, J.; Kim, S.; Kim, K.; Cho, A.; Chang, W. Conceptualizing meaningful work and its implications for HRD. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2020, 45, 36–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ashikali, T.; Groeneveld, S.; Kuipers, B. The Role of Inclusive Leadership in Supporting an Inclusive Climate in Diverse Public Sector Teams. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2021, 41, 497–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Minehart, R.D.; Foldy, E.G.; Long, J.A.; Weller, J.M. Challenging gender stereotypes and advancing inclusive leadership in the operating theatre. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 124, e148–e154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Meeuwissen, S.N.E.; Gijselaers, W.H.; van Oorschot, T.D.; Wolfhagen, I.H.A.P.; Oude Egbrink, M.G.A. Enhancing Team Learning through Leader Inclusiveness: A One-Year Ethnographic Case Study of An interdisciplinary Teacher Team. Teach. Learn. Med. 2021, 33, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ferdman, B.M.; Deane, B.R. Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion; John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Agarwal, U.A.; Dixit, V.; Nikolova, N.; Jain, K.; Sankaran, S. A psychological contract perspective of vertical and distributed leadership in project-based organizations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2021, 39, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Agarwal, U.A.; Avey, J.B. Abusive supervisors and employees who cyberloaf: Examining the roles of psychological capital and contract breach. Internet Res. 2020, 30, 789–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Oorschot, J.; Moscardo, G.; Blackman, A. Leadership style and psychological contract. Aust. J. Career Dev. 2021, 30, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Transaction Publishers: Wiley, NJ, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  27. Levinsonv, H.; Price, C.R.; Munden, K.J.; Mandl, H.J.; Solley, C.M. Men, Management, and Mental Health; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  28. Schein, E.H. Organisational Psychology; Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs: New York, NY, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rousseau, D.M. Psychological and implied contracts in organisations. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 1989, 2, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dulac, T.; Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.; Henderson, D.J.; Wayne, S.J. Not all responses to breach are the same: The interconnection of social exchange and psychological contract processes in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 2008, 51, 1079–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gadomska-Lila, K.; Rogozińska-Pawełczyk, A. The Role of Pro-Innovative HR Practices and Psychological Contract in Shaping Employee Commitment and Satisfaction: A Case from the Energy Industry. Energies 2021, 15, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Grant, A.M.; Parker, S.K. 7 redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2009, 3, 317–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bammens, Y.P. Employees’ innovative behavior in social context: A closer examination of the role of organizational care. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2016, 33, 244–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Seibert, S.E.; Kraimer, M.L.; Crant, J.M. What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Pers. Psychol. 2001, 54, 845–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D.; Livingston, B.A.; Liao, H. Perceived similarity, proactive adjustment, and organizational socialization. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 78, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Erkutlu, H.; Chafra, J. Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on authentic leadership and organizational deviance. Manag. Res. Rev. 2013, 36, 828–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Philipp, B.L.U.; Lopez, P.D.J. The moderating role of ethical leadership: Investigating relationships among employee psychological contracts, commitment, and citizenship behavior. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2013, 20, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rogozińska-Pawełczyk, A.; Gadomska-Lila, K. The Mediating Role of Organisational Identification between Psychological Contract and Work Results: An Individual Level Investigation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ryff, C.D. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in science and practice. Psychother. Psychosom. 2014, 83, 10–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Ruggeri, K.; Garcia-Garzon, E.; Maguire, Á.; Matz, S.; Huppert, F.A. Well-being is more than happiness and life satisfaction: A multidimensional analysis of 21 countries. Psychother. Psychosom. 2020, 18, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nielsen, K.; Noblet, A.J. Organisational Interventions for Health and Well-Being: A Handbook for Evidence-Based Practice; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jeffrey, K.; Mahony, S.; Michaelson, J.; Abdallah, S. Wellbeing at Work: A Review of the Literature; New Economics Foundation: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  43. Carolan, S.; Harris, P.R.; Cavanagh, K. Improving employee well-being and effectiveness: Systematic review and meta-analysis of web-based psychological interventions delivered in the workplace. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Kazemi, A. Conceptualizing and measuring occupational social well-being: A validation study. Int. J. Organ. 2017, 25, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Meske, C.; Junglas, I. Investigating the Elicitation of Employees’ Support towards Digital Workplace Transformation. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2020, 40, 1120–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zheng, X.; Zhu, W.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, C. Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. J. Organ. Behav. 2015, 36, 621–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Green, P.I., Jr.; Finkel, E.J.; Fitzsimons, G.M.; Gino, F. The energizing nature of work engagement: Toward a new need-based theory of work motivation. Res. Organ. Behav. 2017, 37, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Pagán-Castaño, E.; Maseda-Moreno, A.; Santos-Rojo, C. Wellbeing in work environments. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 115, 469–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Deeg, M.; May, D.R. The Benefits to the Human Spirit of Acting Ethically at Work: The Effects of Professional Moral Courage on Work Meaningfulness and Life Well-Being. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 181, 397–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, A.; Boltz, A.; Wang, C.W.; Lee, M.K. Algorithmic management reimagined for workers and by workers: Centering worker well-being in gig work. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 29 April–5 May 2022; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  51. Cooke, P.J.; Melchert, T.P.; Connor, K. Measuring well-being: A review of instruments. Couns. Psychol. 2016, 44, 730–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Johnson, S.; Robertson, I.; Cooper, C.L. Well-Being: Productivity and Happiness at Work; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  53. Van der Vaart, L.; Linde, B.; De Beer, L.; Cockeran, M. Employee well-being, intention to leave and perceived employability: A psychological contract approach. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. 2015, 18, 32–44. [Google Scholar]
  54. Seligman, M. PERMA and the building blocks of well-being. J. Posit. Psychol. 2018, 13, 333–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ahmad, M.I.; Firman, K.; Smith, H.N.; Smith, A. Psychological contract fulfilment and wellbeing. Adv. Soc. Sci. Res. J. 2018, 5, 90–101. [Google Scholar]
  56. Górecki, J. Sektor Nowoczesnych Usług Biznesowych w Polsce 2022; ABSL: Warsaw, Poland, 2023; Available online: https://shop-absl.pl/Sektor-Nowoczesnych-Uslug-Biznesowych-w-Polsce-2022-p117 (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  57. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Spector, P.E. Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem. J. Appl. Psychol. 1987, 72, 438–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vinzi, V.; Chin, W.; Henseler, J. Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Concepts, Methods and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Stratton, S.J. Population Research: Convenience Sampling Strategies. Prehosp. Disaster. Med. 2021, 36, 373–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ashikali, T. Leading towards Inclusiveness: Developing a Measurement Instrument for Inclusive Leadership. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Boston, MA, USA, 2019; p. 16444. [Google Scholar]
  62. Rousseau, D.M.; Tijoriwala, S.A. Assessing psychological contracts: Issues, alternatives, and types of measures. J. Organ. Behav. 1998, 19, 679–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Guest, D.; Conway, N. Communicating the psychological contract: An employer’s perspective. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2002, 12, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Parker, S.K.; Collins, C.G. Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 633–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Behling, O.; Law, K.S. Translating Questionnaires and Other Research Instruments. Problems and Solutions; Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  66. Jacobsen, C.B.; Andersen, L.B. Is leadership in the eye of the beholder? A study of intended and perceived leadership practices and organizational performance. Public Adm. Rev. 2015, 75, 829–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  69. Li, C.H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res. 2016, 48, 936–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 414–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Eid, M.; Diener, E. Intraindividual Variability in Affect: Reliability, Validity, and Personality Correlates. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 76, 662–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Barrett, P. Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2007, 42, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mansoor, A.; Farrukh, M.; Wu, Y.; Abdul Wahab, S. Does inclusive leadership incite innovative work behavior? Hum. Syst. Manag. 2021, 40, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Eisenberger, R.; Stinglhamber, F.; Vandenberghe, C.; Sucharski, I.L.; Rhoades, L. Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 87, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Xanthopoulou, B.; Demerouti, A.B.; Schaufeli, E.; Wilmar, B. Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2009, 82, 183–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Paillie, P.; Raineri, N. Linking perceived corporate environmental policies and employees eco-initiatives: The influence of perceived organizational support and psychological contract breach. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 2404–2411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Soares, M.E.; Mosquera, P. “Fostering work engagement: The role of the psychological contract. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Meyer, A.M.; Bartels, L.K. The impact of onboarding levels on perceived utility, organizational commitment, organizational support, and job satisfaction. J. Organ. Psychol. 2017, 17, 10–27. [Google Scholar]
  79. Siegrist, J.; Li, J. Associations of extrinsic and intrinsic components of work stress with health: A systematic review of evidence on the effort-reward imbalance model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Knapp, J.R.; Diehl, M.R.; Dougan, W. Towards a social-cognitive theory of multiple psychological contracts. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2020, 29, 200–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Toth, I.; Heinanen, S.; Nisula, A.M. Personal resources and knowledge workers’ job engagement. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020, 28, 595–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gahlawat, N.; Kundu, S.C. Progressive human resource management and firm performance, empirical evidence from Indian context. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2019, 27, 471–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lakshman, C.; Rai, S.; Lakshman, S. Knowledge sharing, organizational commitment and turnover intention among knowledge workers: A knowledge-based perspective. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2022, 16, 768–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Nguyen, V.T.; Siengthai, S.; Swierczek, F.; Bamel, U.K. The effects of organizational culture and commitment on employee innovation: Evidence from Vietnam’s IT industry. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2019, 13, 719–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 11059 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed hypothetical model. Note: Dotted lines indicate association excluding causal relationship.
Figure 1. Proposed hypothetical model. Note: Dotted lines indicate association excluding causal relationship.
Sustainability 15 11059 g001
Sustainability 15 11059 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural model. Note: Dotted lines indicate associations excluding a causal relationship. Note: ** p < 0.01.
Figure 2. Structural model. Note: Dotted lines indicate associations excluding a causal relationship. Note: ** p < 0.01.
Sustainability 15 11059 g002
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the survey sample (n = 1000).
Table 1. Characteristics of the survey sample (n = 1000).
CriteriaValuesTotal
n%
1000100.0
GenderMale43343.3
Female56756.7
AgeUnder 30 years535.3
30–39 years34134.1
40–49 years32332.3
50–54 years18518.5
55 and over979.7
Education levelBachelor’s degree757.5
Master’s degree82482.4
Ph.D.757.5
Prof.262.6
Total length of serviceUp to 5 years565.6
6–10 years13213.2
Over 10 years81181.1
Length of service with current companyUp to one year818.1
One to five years35035.0
6–10 years29029.0
Over 10 years27927.9
Size of the organization’s workforce10–4927927.9
50–24929829.8
250 or more42342.3
Form of ownership of the organizationPublic11011.0
Private89089.0
Work positionManager50050.0
Non-manager50050.0
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of main variables of interest.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of main variables of interest.
DimensionsMMeSDSKpILPCFPWBWWBLWB
IL4.1831.05−0.10−0.48<0.001 ***1.00
PCF5.7251.18−0.33−0.42<0.009 ***0.243 ***1.00
PWB5.2530.89−0.09−0.45<0.001 ***0.176 ***0.140 ***1.00
WWB6.1251.23−0.024−0.39<0.001 ***0.114 ***0.136 ***0.122 ***1.00
LWB6.2251.27−0.15−0.28<0.001 ***0.201 ***0.108 ***0.119 ***0.206 ***1.00
Note: *** <0.001. n = 1000. M—mean; Me—median; SD—standard deviation; S—coefficient of skewness; K—kurtosis; p—Mann–Whitney test probability; correlation tested using Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient (r) *** p < 0.001. (IL—Inclusive Leadership; PCF—Psychological Contract Fulfilment; PWB—Proactive Work Behavior; WWB—Workplace well-being; LWB—Life-related well-being).
Table
Table 3. KMO, Bartlett’s sphericity test, and reliability rating.
Table 3. KMO, Bartlett’s sphericity test, and reliability rating.
SpecificationsILPCFPWBWWBLWBEWB
KMO0.8510.7760.7240.8160.7320.830
Bartlett’s sphericity testχ2 (13) = 1062.5
p < 0.001 **		χ2 (17) = 2561.2
p < 0.001 **		χ2 (24) = 2614.0
p < 0.001 **		χ2 (6) = 2264.1
p < 0.001 **		χ2 (6) = 1056.1
p < 0.001 **		χ2 (12) = 2041.5
p < 0.001 **
Cronbach’s Alpha0.8740.8140.7910.8030.8590.896
Note: IL—Inclusive Leadership; PCF—Psychological Contract Fulfilment; PWB—Proactive Work Behavior; WWB—Workplace Well-Being; LWB—Life-Related well-being. p— Bartlett’s sphericity test; correlation tested using Pearson’s linear correlation coefficient (r) ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Measures of model fit.
Table 4. Measures of model fit.
FactorValue Factor
χ2 = 1845.7, df = 953
p < 0.0001
χ2 df = 1.937
RMSEA0.059
90% CI0.058–0.061
CFI0.909
GFI0.864
AGFI0.919
SRMR0.06
Note: χ2—chi-square statistic, df—number of degrees of freedom, RMSEA—root mean square error of approximation, 90%CI—90% confidence interval for RMSEA, GFI—goodness-of-fit index, AGFI—adjusted goodness-of-fit index, CFI—relative fit index, and SRMR—standardized root mean square residual.
Table
Table 5. Convergent and discriminant validity.
Table 5. Convergent and discriminant validity.
CRαAVEILPCFPWBWWBLWBEWB
IL0.790.870.52-
PCF0.860.810.490.19 ***-
PWB0.900.790.410.14 ***0.61 ***-
WWB0.890.800.490.24 ***0.49 ***0.21 ***-
LWB0.880.860.510.22 ***0.71 ***0.28 ***0.76 ***-
EWB0.910,900.490.31 ***0.56 ***0.49 ***0.51 ***0.49 ***-
Note: (α) = Cronbach’s Alpha; CR = Composite Reliability; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; IL—Inclusive Leadership; PCF—Psychological Contract Fulfilment; PWB—Proactive Work Behavior; WWB—Workplace well-being; LWB—Life-Related well-being; EWB—Employee Well-Being total; *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rogozińska-Pawełczyk, A. Inclusive Leadership and Psychological Contract Fulfilment: A Source of Proactivity and Well-Being for Knowledge Workers. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411059

AMA Style

Rogozińska-Pawełczyk A. Inclusive Leadership and Psychological Contract Fulfilment: A Source of Proactivity and Well-Being for Knowledge Workers. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14):11059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411059

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rogozińska-Pawełczyk, Anna. 2023. "Inclusive Leadership and Psychological Contract Fulfilment: A Source of Proactivity and Well-Being for Knowledge Workers" Sustainability 15, no. 14: 11059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411059

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop