Enhancing Employee Voice and Inclusion Through Inclusive Leadership in Public Sector Organizations

Abstract

This article explores the impact of inclusive leadership behaviors on Indigenous voice and the perception of workplace inclusion by Indigenous employees in Vietnam public agencies. Drawing from qualitative research with managers and Indigenous employees in three public organizations, we found that, first, inclusive leadership behaviors promoted workplace diversity by supporting Indigenous presence through recruitment; training and development opportunities; and promotion into decision making roles. Second, inclusive leadership facilitated Indigenous belongingness by accepting Indigenous employees as important group members, and sympathizing with their challenges. Third, in the context of a Confucian and collectivist-influenced country, inclusive leadership played a crucial role in valuing Indigenous uniqueness by encouraging their voice over their work; valuing their contributions; and respecting their differences. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords

inclusive leadership Indigenous employee voice Confucianism inclusion

Introduction

Employee voice (EV) is understood as practices giving employees opportunities to have a say and influence over managerial decision-making in organizations (Wilkinson et al., 2014). EV practices and occurrence are motivated by external and internal factors (Townsend et al., 2020). Studies demonstrate that leadership behavior is an internal factor that is often crucial in enabling employees to express their voice (Ingraham & Getha-Taylor, 2004; Ng, 2008; Tang et al., 2015). A range of leadership styles have been identified that impact on employees in different ways (Chen et al., 2018; Liggans et al., 2019; van Dick et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2016; Weiss et al., 2018). Leadership styles are also contextual and in a diverse workplace, inclusive leadership is required to capture all voices (Randel et al., 2018). Scholars argue that inclusive leadership is a key element in addressing the challenges of diversity in that it facilitates employees’ perceptions of belonging while maintaining their uniqueness (Sabharwal, 2014; Shore et al., 2011; Weiss et al., 2018). Roberson (2006) claims that inclusive leadership can remove the obstacles employees face to fully participate and contribute to their organization. Moreover, if employees’ perspectives are valued, their self-esteem is enhanced (Sabharwal, 2014). However, while there is increasing research into inclusive leadership, its effect on voice from marginalized groups is still unknown (Shore et al., 2018; Weiss et al., 2018). This is particularly the case in Confucian cultures where the diversity of voices is often ignored (Alang et al., 2020). Townsend et al. (2020) call for more research on the motivation of EV. Also, Shore et al. (2018) suggest the need for studies exploring how inclusive leadership behaviors impact on marginalized employees’ perceptions of workplace inclusion. In this article, we take up these challenges by focusing on Indigenous employees in public sector organizations in Vietnam.

There are studies that focus on Indigenous management practices and leadership behaviors (Eyong, 2017; Haar & Brougham, 2011; Henry & Wolfgramm, 2018; Mika & O’Sullivan, 2014; Ruwhiu & Elkin, 2016). Most Indigenous research, however, is conducted in developed countries where the Indigenous population has undergone Western colonization (e.g., Mika & O’Sullivan, 2014; Ruwhiu & Elkin, 2016) and has responded with calls for sovereignty over their land and voice within the nation. In Vietnam, a developing country, Indigenous people are not officially acknowledged as Indigenous by the government due to political and historical reasons (The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs [IWGIA], 2018). Instead, they are described as ethnic minority groups, despite the fact that many of these minorities are tribes who are native to their land (Gupta, 2005; IWGIA, 2018). This is particularly true of ethnic groups (i.e., Montagnards people) in the Central Highlands region (Gupta, 2005; IWGIA, 2018) and in this article, we use the term Indigenous to identify these tribes. The Vietnamese government has introduced policies to increase the workforce participation of its Indigenous people in the public sector; however, there is a dearth of Indigenous workplace-based research that explores the impact of these policies on voice practices for these Indigenous employees (Alang et al., 2020; Badiani et al., 2012). According to Barry and Wilkinson (2016), EV not only benefits an organization, but also contributes to individual well-being and the quality of a country’s democracy. Also, leadership research in Vietnam’s public sector indicates that Vietnamese leadership cultures are influenced by Confucianism and collectivism and a high power distance context, which may shape an organization’s voice practices and employees’ perception of inclusion (Nguyen et al., 2018). However, how the role of leadership styles in promoting an inclusive climate within organizations that employ a significant number of Indigenous people in Vietnam is still unknown.

In this article, we draw on evidence from three case studies in the Central Highlands region of Vietnam. We argue that this unique context may provide further understanding of inclusive leadership behavior as a motivating factor of voice and inclusion from a non-Western perspective. Furthermore, this article reports on one of the first studies on the effect of leadership on Indigenous voice from a developing and Confucian-influenced country by capturing the perception and experience of Indigenous people themselves. By doing so, this article offers novel theoretical insights into expanding the concept of inclusive leadership and its impact on voice from minority groups. The aim of this article is to explore inclusive leadership behaviors that impact on Indigenous voice and their perception of inclusion in Vietnamese public sector workplaces. First, we outline the Vietnamese context; second, we review the relevant literature on EV, inclusion practice, and inclusive leadership; third, we outline the methodology utilized in this study; fourth, we present our findings, and finally, we present our discussions and conclusions.

The Vietnam Context

The Vietnamese government has signed the United Nations Millennium Declaration that includes supporting, maintaining, and protecting Indigenous people and their values (United Nations, 2010). The Government has demonstrated willingness to foster equal employment opportunity (EEO) through promoting nondiscrimination and inclusion of Indigenous people in the workplace. This EEO policy is documented in the Labour Code 1994 providing preferential recruiting policies to promote Indigenous workforce participation in public sector organizations. EEO policy has been implemented differently across the country as it includes quotas of Indigenous employees recruited into public sector organizations depending on the size of the Indigenous population in the local community.

Vietnam is described as a socialist market or transitional economy, and EV is recognized and applied in workplaces through a variety of mechanisms (Collins et al., 2011). Vietnam is also a Confucian and collectivist-influenced country with a high power distance culture (Nguyen et al., 2013). High power distance is defined as “the extent to which the members of a society accept that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 1985, p. 348). In other words, power is concentrated at the higher level of an organization (Kwon & Farndale, 2020). Studies suggest that EV is limited in collectivist cultures as employees do not feel safe to speak up or disagree with leaders and managers (Kwon & Farndale, 2020). In this situation, although voice mechanisms are provided within the workplace, Indigenous employees may feel vulnerable as their differences may be overlooked, undervalued, or stereotyped by non-Indigenous managers (Badiani et al., 2012).

There is an increasing literature studying Vietnamese workers and organizations; however, there is a lack of empirical research on the experience of Indigenous Vietnamese in the workplace instead Indigenous research focuses on socioeconomics and poverty (Gerard, 2001; NAFOSTED, 2018; United Nations, 2010). As Gerard (2001) argues with a population of over 10 million, Vietnam’s Indigenous people could not only be a potential source of future skills and talent, but could also make a considerable contribution to the growth of the Vietnamese economy. Furthermore, research on inclusive leadership and Indigenous voice in developing countries such as Vietnam can further contribute to understanding EV from the context of Confucian cultures and extend the literature on inclusion and leadership. Exploring these concepts from the perspectives of non-Western countries has much to offer (Bell et al., 2011; Oswick & Noon, 2014).

Minority EV Experience

In general, EV practices consist of direct and indirect communication and decision-making through formal and informal channels (Morrison, 2011). Direct voice is described as the immediate communication between managers and employees without the involvement of representatives (Dundon et al., 2004). This can include self-managed teams, problem-solving groups, suggestion schemes, and a range of other direct measures. In contrast, indirect communication or collective voice refers to trade unions, workers’ councils, or joint consultative committees who act on behalf of employees and represent them to management (Dundon et al., 2004; Marchington & Kynighou, 2012). EV practices are also often carried out informally, which includes informal discussions, one-to-one meetings, emails, and open-door policies (Dundon et al., 2004). However, the outcomes of EV practices are facilitated and influenced by both external (i.e., legislations, cultures, etc.) and internal factors (i.e., organizational regulations, leadership, employers-led, etc.) as voice is considered as a process from start to end (Hickland et al., 2020; Townsend et al., 2020).

Often minority EV is not considered to be a crucial part of an organization’s EV practices, since voice is often treated as a “universal concept” and applied in the same way to all workers (Bell et al., 2011). As such, voice from minority groups has often gone unheard and minority employees are not involved in decision-making processes (Bell et al., 2011; Shore et al., 2018). The lack of minority EV can be exacerbated by discrimination and forms of harassment in the workplace (Colgan et al., 2009).

Many studies call for different but equal treatments for minority group employees to adapt to their unique aspects of identity, cultures, languages, and capacity (Bell et al., 2011; Kensington-Miller & Ratima, 2015). Researching strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees, Bell et al. (2011) argue that voices from this group not only need to be treated the same as others in terms of “rights, benefits, and privileges” (p. 136), but in addition, their contributions to organizations should be accepted and valued equally. Moreover, government policies and legislation are considered as key elements that guide organizations, employers, and management to apply appropriate approaches to inclusion of minority EVs into the workplace (Shore et al., 2018).

Studies claim that Indigenous employees are twice as likely to suffer from racial discrimination and sexual harassment than others in the workplace (Hunter & Hawke, 2001; Kensington-Miller & Ratima, 2015). Such discrimination and harassment may lead Indigenous employees to be vulnerable and overlooked by managers, due to a lack of understanding of Indigenous voice from managers, trade unions, and policy makers (Hunter & Hawke, 2001). Evidence suggests that organizational voice practices do not take into account specific Indigenous employees’ cultural needs, often because managers do not understand what these needs are (Haar & Brougham, 2011). Furthermore, Indigenous employees have less opportunity to gain a range of technical skills and abilities which may contribute to their inclusion in regard to organizational decision-making.

Inclusion Practice and Minority EV

It is a challenge to capture voices from marginalized groups to harness the unique knowledge, skills, and capacity that can contribute to organizational effectiveness (Farndale et al., 2015). A focus on equal opportunity practices can foster the workforce participation of minority employees through appropriate recruitment and selection, promotion, and career development strategies (Roberson, 2006; Shore et al., 2018). They also include practices that promote justice, fairness, and equity in the workplace through performance and reward processes (Farndale et al., 2015; Tang et al., 2015). However, while such practices provide pathways for employees into and within the organization, on their own they do not promote employees’ perception of inclusion which is understood as “the degree to which an employee is accepted and treated as an insider by others” (Pelled et al., 1999, p. 1014). Sabharwal (2014) argues that active promotion of inclusion of minority employees is essential to demonstrate that their voices are valued and which in turn enhances their self-esteem.

Individual employees perceive a sense of inclusion when they consider themselves as “an esteemed member of the work group” (Shore et al., 2011, p. 1265). This is because their needs for belonging and uniqueness are satisfied (Brewer, 1991). Belongingness is the fundamental human demand for forming and maintaining strong and stable relationships with other people (Brewer, 1991). Belongingness consists of two aspects: group membership and group affection (Brewer, 1991; Jansen et al. 2014). Jansen et al. (2014) claim that “whereas group membership reflects the perceived strength of the bond between an individual and the group, group affection indicates the perceived positive valence of the bond” (p. 125). The acceptance of being a member of a group prevents minority employees feeling a sense of isolation in the workplace (Shore et al., 2011). In addressing employees’ need for belongingness, individual employees need their leaders’ support for being a group member, ensuring justice and fairness, and sharing decision-making (Randel et al., 2018).

However, group belongingness does not mean assimilation into the dominant culture (Brewer, 1991). Employees from minority groups also need to be valued for their uniqueness and the potential this brings for creativity and innovation (Shore et al., 2011). Employees find their satisfaction with uniqueness when they “perceptually distance themselves from meaningful others by downplaying one’s commonalities with others or by defining oneself in terms of one’s idiosyncratic traits and opinions” (Jansen et al., 2014, p. 125). Valuing employee uniqueness requires organizational leaders to have policies and practices that encourage diverse voices and support group members to fully contribute to organizational processes (Randel et al., 2018). The importance for belongingness or uniqueness also depends on the cultural context (Shore et al., 2011). For instance, in Confucian culture employees may consider their need for belongingness is more important than for uniqueness since this particular culture focuses on collective identity to foster a sense of communality (Buengeler et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2018). Despite that, individuals perceive full belongingness not only when their voices are included and they are treated equally, but also when their uniqueness including language, spirituality, and humor are encouraged and valued (Shore et al., 2011).

The Role of Inclusive Leadership in Enabling Indigenous Voice and Inclusion: A Conceptual Framework

Inclusive leadership is as a set of positive leader behaviors that facilitate group members’ perception of belongingness while maintaining their uniqueness for them to have fully contributed to group processes and outcomes (Randel et al., 2018). An inclusive leader is one who has capabilities such as mindsets, knowledge, skills, and behaviors which make their organizations inclusive (Diversity Council Australia, 2015). We know that EV practices by themselves do not lead to an inclusive environment where Indigenous voice is respected and heard (Bell et al., 2011). Instead, the difference comes from inclusive leadership behaviors which focus on removing obstacles to ensure that every employee is able to access organizational resources and to value the contribution of their skills and knowledge (Buengeler et al., 2018).

Previous research suggests that prior to inclusion, efforts must be made to make the workplace more diverse through appropriate human resource management policies (Farndale et al., 2015; Roberson, 2006). However, individual employees perceive inclusion only when they feel that they are a part of critical organizational processes, such as access to information, connectedness to coworkers, and ability to participate in and influence the decision-making. Evidence suggests that inclusive leaders support their followers to feel a greater belongingness in the workplace through empowering them to advance their career prospects and enhancing beneficial effects of workplace diversity (Buengeler et al., 2018; Farndale et al., 2015).

Inclusive leadership behaviors also maintain and value employee uniqueness (Brewer, 1991; Milliken & Martins, 1996) understanding that differences create a uniqueness that should be recognized, respected, and heard (Bell et al., 2011; Randel et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2011). Individual employees are more likely to speak up if they feel comfortable and safe and their voices are accepted and treated equally by their leaders and others (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Inclusive leaders also encourage diverse contributions from all employees through, for example, informal interactions and discussions (Barak, 1999).

Leaders can actively invite minority employees to participate in discussions and decision-making in which their voices and perspectives might otherwise be absent (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006) by encouraging group members to share their experience and perspectives (Randel et al., 2018). Research has also found that the communication style of leaders can impact on followers’ voice (Ng & Barker, 2014; Ozyilmaz & Taner, 2018; Tang et al., 2015; Weiss et al., 2018). For example, speaking styles of inclusive leaders involve using first-person plural pronouns such as “we,” “us,” and “our” which are a crucial element which impacts positively on subordinates’ voice behaviors (Weiss et al., 2018). Tang et al. (2015) argue that inclusive communication consists of democratic communication (e.g., leaders provide channels for voice at each level) and communication and acceptance (e.g., leaders communicate and share experience within the workgroup). Overall, inclusive leadership behaviors foster employee needs for belongingness and value their uniqueness. As such, a person has ability to contribute fully and effectively to an organization (Roberson, 2006). Figure 1 outlines the conceptual framework of this article and the centrality of inclusive leadership behaviors. It argues that EV practices have limitations as the diverse aspects of Indigenous uniqueness are ignored. Instead, inclusive practices depend heavily on individual leaders. Inclusive leadership behaviors can address Indigenous EV and inclusion in the workplace. These behaviors include applying inclusion and diversity practices for Indigenous participation, supporting Indigenous belongingness, empowering Indigenous voice, maintaining Indigenous differences, valuing Indigenous contribution to decision-making, and practicing inclusive communication.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework of centrality of inclusive leadership behaviors.

Although research into inclusive leadership has increased, its effect on voice from marginalized groups (i.e., Indigenous employees) in the context of Confucian cultures is still unknown (Shore et al., 2018; Weiss et al., 2018). In this article, we address the following research question: How and why does inclusive leadership behavior impact on Indigenous EV and perceptions of inclusion in Vietnamese public sector workplaces?

Method

Due to the exploratory nature of the research questions, this study utilized a qualitative methodology including collection of key documentation, in-depth face-to-face interviews, and fieldwork notes and observation (Creswell, 2014). This article draws from a project exploring Indigenous EV and inclusion in three public sector organizations in Vietnam’s Central Highlands region. The Central Highlands is the home of more than 20 Indigenous groups (Gupta, 2005). These three organizations were purposively selected due to their large and ethnically diverse workplaces, and permission was granted from the senior leadership in each organization. These organizations were located in different regions and had responsibility for public administration, public policy, and public services in a number of areas including education, health care, business registration, infrastructure, public security, and taxes. The whole organization of Case Study 1 had 40% of Indigenous employees. Meanwhile, the whole organization in Case Studies 2 and 3 had 45% and 43% of Indigenous employees, respectively.

Carrying out Indigenous research in Vietnam is sensitive due to historical factors such as disputes over territory and land rights and shifting allegiances during the American War (Gupta, 2005). Although permission had been granted, organizational data and reports were often deemed confidential and hard to access. In each organization, senior managers were approached and interviewed first. Winning their confidence led to the provision of further potential interviewees, including line managers and Indigenous employees, who were approached confidentially through a snowballing strategy.

The study also took account of Indigenous uniqueness, which highlights the necessity of flexibility and sensitivity in Indigenous research and the importance of involving Indigenous researchers and Indigenous language to capture Indigenous voice (Chilisa, 2012; Eyong, 2017; Louis, 2007). For example, Indigenous people’s oral histories, narratives, and spirituality often contain nuances which only members of their own community can understand (Louis, 2007). The fieldwork in this study lasted for 5 months, from early July 2016 to late November 2016, and was carried out by an Indigenous researcher who captured the voice of Indigenous people by conforming to their cultural, social, and ethical norms, which allowed for richness in data collection (Chilisa, 2012; Creswell, 2014). During the fieldwork, the chief investigator immersed himself in the workplace of each case study to observe daily communication among Indigenous employees and managers, weekly and monthly meetings, problem-solving schedules, workplace’s weekly newsletters, and any announcements released in the workplace. All these observational activities were permitted by senior Indigenous leaders at each site.

In total, 31 in-depth interviews were conducted across the three organizations; the participants included senior managers, line managers, union representatives, and Indigenous employees. The majority of respondents were Indigenous (see Table 1). All participants were full-time employees and their service ranged from 7 months to 21 years. There were 13 female participants. This sample size satisfied the criteria of sufficiency and saturation which mean that the information collected from the interviews is adequate to illustrate the research issues and no new data emerge (Guest et al., 2006).

Table 1.

Summary of Participant Profiles.

Participant position	Gender	Job title	Ethnic identity	Experience	Case studies
Manager	Female	Chairperson	Indigenous	21 years	1
Manager	Male	Vice chairperson	Indigenous	8 years	1
Manager	Male	Head of department	Indigenous	3 years	1
Employee	Male	Statistics assistant	Indigenous	4 years	1
Employee	Female	File clerk	Indigenous	5 years	1
Employee	Male	Program assistant	Indigenous	9 years	1
Employee	Male	Human resource assistant	Indigenous	9 years	1
Employee	Male	Administrative assistant	Indigenous	7 months	1
Employee	Male	Doctor	Indigenous	4 years	1
Manager	Female	Vice chairperson	Indigenous	2 years	2
Manager	Male	Head of department	Non-Indigenous	9 years	2
Union	Female	Union representative	Indigenous	1 year	2
Manager	Male	Deputy head of department	Indigenous	3 years	2
Manager	Male	Head of department	Indigenous	8 years	2
Manager	Male	Deputy head of department	Indigenous	2 years	2
Employee	Female	Cashier	Indigenous	8 years	2
Employee	Male	Doctor	Indigenous	5 years	2
Employee	Female	Human resource assistant	Indigenous	11months	2
Employee	Female	Administrative assistant	Indigenous	4 years	2
Employee	Male	Instructor	Indigenous	8 years	2
Employee	Female	Nurse	Indigenous	3 years	2
Employee	Male	Health and safety officer	Indigenous	5 years	2
Manager	Female	Head of department	Indigenous	6 years	3
Manager	Male	Head of department	Non-Indigenous	5 years	3
Manager	Male	Head of department	Indigenous	1 year	3
Union	Male	Union representative	Indigenous	4 years	3
Employee	Female	Accountant	Indigenous	7 years	3
Employee	Female	Human resource assistant	Indigenous	6 years	3
Employee	Female	Administrative assistant	Indigenous	4 years	3
Employee	Female	Secretary	Indigenous	13 years	3
Employee	Male	Technical assistant	Indigenous	2 years	3

There were two interview schedules utilized in this study. The first one was designed to interview managers and union representatives to gain their perspectives on the implementation of government policy with respect to Indigenous inclusion and voice practices. For example, what is your organization doing to respond to employees’ direct/indirect influence over their work? What is your organization doing to consult directly/indirectly with employees? Are the EV practices implemented for Indigenous groups in different ways to the mainstream? If so, how? How much emphasis does your organization put into ethnic diversity and inclusion? A second interview schedule was used to interview Indigenous employees to capture their perceptions of the impact of policy and practice. For example, are you able to have influence directly/indirectly over your work in the organization? If so, how? Are you consulted directly/indirectly by management on decision-making related to your work? If so, how do managers consult directly/indirectly with you? Are the EV practices implemented for your group different to the mainstream? If so, how? Is the organization concerned about ethnic diversity and inclusion in workplace? If so, what is the organization doing related to ethnic diversity? In terms of inclusion in workplaces, what are some factors in your organization that may make you feel inclusive? Why?

The interviews were conducted in both Vietnamese and the Indigenous language, and the transcripts were translated into English by the investigator and checked independently by another Indigenous Vietnamese researcher from a different project. The study also captured secondary data were available including human resource policies, annual reports, monthly briefing summaries, workplace regulations, local news, and the central and provincial governments’ decisions and directives. This process of triangulation involved cross-referenced information from a range of sources (Creswell, 2014). The study used several sources of data in each case to confirm the information from the interviews, including observation and documentation. In addition, perspectives across interviewees were compared to eliminate personal bias (Creswell, 2014).

The study utilized thematic analysis defined as a method for identifying, analyzing, and interpreting patterns’ meanings or themes (Braun et al., 2014). The thematic approach promotes rich and insightful understandings of the complexity of the research issues and can be used to expand and explore existing theories (Green & Thorogood, 2014). All data were coded in the following way. First, the data were clarified. All the interview audio recordings and note-taking were reviewed immediately and any discrepancies or lack of clarity was checked with the interviewees. The interview audio recordings were transcribed, read, and compared with the documents to become familiar with the data; any contradictory ideas or information between interviewees and among different sources of information were highlighted to check later. Second, initial codes and themes were explored. This was done by immersion in the raw data, including interview transcripts, documentation, field notes, and memos. These were reread and arranged into different groups of sources of information within each case study, such as the manager interviews, employee interviews, policy, legislation, government and media reports, and foreign documents (Creswell, 2014). Then, these groups of information were “imported” into the software, NVivo 10 for Mac, for the coding process and “creating nodes.” Each node contained several appropriate segments of text data. To create the nodes, a “star list” approach was in which the initial nodes were drawn from the literature (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Nodes in the “star list” included items such as “EV practices,” “inclusive leadership behaviors,” “EV occurrence,” and “diversity and inclusion practice.” The text data from interviews, field notes, and documents were reviewed again, and appropriate segments were selected and entered into the appropriate node in the starting list of nodes. There was no limitation on number of nodes. New nodes were created in cases where a new insight emerged from the data (Creswell, 2014). Some exemplars of new nodes identified in this data analysis process include “seeking justice and fairness for Indigenous,” “sharing decision-making roles with Indigenous,” “accepting Indigenous employee as an esteemed member of group,” “improving Indigenous employees’ confidence and self-esteem,” “encouraging Indigenous voice over work,” “seeking Indigenous contribution,” and “respecting Indigenous differences.” Some nodes also contained sub-nodes, which are referred to as “child nodes” in NVivo. For example, “respecting Indigenous differences” contains “gentle speaking,” “truly listening,” and “encouraging Indigenous cultures and languages within workplace.” All nodes were sorted and arranged into different categories. The nodes, categories, and text data were checked again and searched for themes.

The third step focused on reviewing, defining, and naming themes. The initial list of themes, categories, nodes, and text data was also interpreted in some papers which were presented at several academic workshops and conferences to gain feedback from other scholars. All feedback and comments were taken into consideration and compared for further development. The final themes which contribute to analyzing the research questions achieved the consensus of the research team.

Findings

Three key themes emerged from the interviews related to inclusive leadership behaviors, Indigenous EV, and perceptions of inclusion. They are: actively promoting workplace diversity, facilitating Indigenous belongingness, and valuing Indigenous uniqueness.

Inclusive Leadership Promoting Workplace Diversity

Every leader and manager we interviewed, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, expressed their commitment to Indigenous participation in the workplace. They proudly demonstrated how they utilized government policy in their agencies and departments to create pathways for Indigenous employees, prioritize their recruitment, and provide them with permanent work contracts. They claimed that they include Indigenous voice in their organizational decision-making processes through, for example, balancing the number of Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees within the workplace and appointing Indigenous employees to managerial positions. A chairperson in Case 1, a successful Indigenous woman, outlined a key targeted recruitment policy in her agency:

Every department is required to support financially at least 1 Indigenous high school student to complete their school and then attend university. After that, this student will be recruited by the department. (M1)

Furthermore, she stressed the importance of Indigenous voice in decision-making claiming:

In each department, there should be at least 1 Indigenous person in a leadership position such as head or deputy head of department. (M1)

Prioritizing the appointment of Indigenous employees to managerial positions was also seen as important by the non-Indigenous interviewees, as a male departmental head in Case 2 stated,

If there are two people who have the same qualifications to be promoted to managerial positions, the Indigenous employee will be preferred. (M11)

Prioritizing Indigenous employee training was also identified by an Indigenous vice chairperson from Case 1, who claimed,

We recruit annually young and capable Indigenous employees from all departments . . . to attend advanced training programs on the profession and political ideology. (M2)

Importantly, there was seen to be a benefit in attracting and retaining Indigenous employees in that they were committed to the local area, whereas it was claimed that non-Indigenous employees tended to move to the remote areas for only a short period of time to further their careers. As one non-Indigenous manager in Case 2 pointed out:

They [Indigenous people] are the locals here and they will serve their communities for all their life, while most of the Kinh (non-Indigenous) come here to work for a while and then return to the city—their home. (M11)

A female cashier in Case 2 spoke about her own non-Indigenous manager:

He supports the signing of permanent contracts with Indigenous people rather than the Kinh because most Kinh staff will leave the workplace after several years. (E16)

Inclusive leaders also actively worked to counteract any backlash from non-Indigenous staff. One non-Indigenous manager argued that Indigenous preference was not about advantaging Indigenous employees, rather it was employment equity. Another non-Indigenous manager in Case 3 argued that the promotion policy in his department was based on capacity and experience rather than racial background. He stated,

. . . we do not give them [Indigenous staff] advantages of promotion because of their racial background. For example, we just appointed one employee to a senior position in the department because of his great capacity and long experience. (M24)

In summary, we found that inclusive leaders can make a difference in relation to implementing EEO policy in the workplace. They did this in three major ways: first, creating and supporting workplace diversity for Indigenous employees through recruitment; second, training and development opportunities; and third, promotion into decision-making roles.

Inclusive Leadership Facilitating Indigenous Belongingness

Once recruited into the workplace, inclusive leaders also made an effort to ensure that Indigenous employees were accepted as important group members. They gave examples of how they included Indigenous employees in staff retreats, parties, sport, and art activities and understood the challenges that Indigenous employees faced in the workplace, especially in relation to racial discrimination. As an Indigenous female senior leader commented:

We often organize retreats, exchange sessions and sporting competitions . . . we invite all staff to join. There is no racial discrimination at all. We divide randomly employees who join the events in separate teams, so that the playing teams will have both Indigenous and non-Indigenous members. (M10)

Another senior Indigenous leader understood the challenges that Indigenous employees face in the workplace from her own lived experience:

We understand the obstacles that Indigenous employees have to overcome to have their work accepted to be as good as their non-Indigenous colleagues. (M1)

Creating a sense of belonging is also about valuing and recognizing knowledge and skills. Some non-Indigenous managers particularly those who had lived in the region for a long period and made it their home were able to do this. These managers had learned to trust their Indigenous employees. For example, one non-Indigenous departmental manager claimed:

With senior staff who have work experience and good knowledge and skills, I give them authority to make final decisions on their tasks. (M24)

Inclusive leaders also described how they evaluated the performance in different ways from mainstream staff particularly in the early days of their employment. For example,

. . . the Indigenous employees’ performance is evaluated differently from the Kinh. Once they have improved their performance as well as the Kinh, the practices applied to the Kinh will also be adopted for them. In the first step of their jobs, they should be treated in a delicate way. (M11)

In summary, inclusive leadership behaviors created sense of belonging for Indigenous employees in the workplace by accepting Indigenous employees as important group members, sympathizing with Indigenous challenges, and valuing Indigenous knowledge and skills and their contributions.

Inclusive Leadership Valuing Indigenous Uniqueness

The major attribute that we found that inclusive leaders display that contributes to Indigenous voice in the workplace was valuing Indigenous uniqueness. We found many examples of how inclusive leaders were able to improve Indigenous employees’ self-esteem and confidence through encouraging Indigenous voice, actively seeking Indigenous contributions, and respecting and empathizing with Indigenous differences. For example, inclusive leaders expressed their respect for Indigenous difference by encouraging Indigenous cultures and languages within the workplace and truly listening to the ideas of their Indigenous employees:

I use the Indigenous language to communicate with my staff in my room and outside the workplace. I also use the Indigenous language to instruct my staff in the workplace. (M23)

To encourage Indigenous voice over work, a majority of respondents (both managers and employees) stated that inclusive leaders applied direct and informal voice mechanisms with Indigenous employees to capture Indigenous voices:

There are diverse ways to communicate with my staff in the department . . . such as discussion via face-to-face meeting, and Facebook, Zalo, emails . . . my brothers are free to talk with me about their job skills, ideas, and suggestions. (M11)

These leaders also attempted to improve Indigenous employees’ self-esteem by empowering them in the workplace. The empowerment process included leaders taking the time to understand their Indigenous employees and making sure that the workplace climate encouraged them to be able to speak out:

Leaders should understand what their Indigenous employees’ strengths and what their weaknesses are. When the leaders ask them to do something, they should show them detailed, not hasty talk . . . they need a friendly workplace climate where they can share their ideas comfortably. (M1)

Importantly, we found that many inclusive leaders used “gentle speaking” which means speaking in an encouraging and empathetic voice to Indigenous employees and they were proactive in seeking Indigenous employees’ contribution, demonstrating that they were truly listening and respecting Indigenous differences. For example,

The Indigenous people are really different. I have to talk with them very gently and in the Indigenous language. (M25)

Indigenous employees described this approach as friendly and supportive and boosted their confidence and self-esteem:

I see that the boss is very friendly with the Indigenous staff and he also teaches us on some new issues. (U26)

It is normal for me. If my suggestions are correct, the boss will really listen to and take them into consideration. (E19)

My boss is very nice and she treats everyone equally, that makes people in the workplace more independent, polite, and punctual. (E28)

They always encourage us to work and express our voices in the workplaces. I remember Mrs H last year asked me to come to her room and told me that I needed to be confident to share ideas with others. (E5)

In summary, inclusive leaders improved Indigenous employees’ confidence and self-esteem by encouraging Indigenous voice over their work, seeking and valuing Indigenous contributions, and respecting Indigenous uniqueness and differences.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this article, we responded to the calls from previous studies (e.g., Shore et al., 2018; Townsend et al., 2020) to explore the impact of inclusive leadership behaviors on EV and their perceptions of inclusion. We did this through a focus on Indigenous EV in public sector organizations in Vietnam. Our findings extend the inclusive leadership and voice literature in three ways.

First, in line with Randel et al. (2018), our findings show that inclusive leaders can facilitate employee belongingness and uniqueness and address diversity in the workplace by proactively implementing government and organizational policies and creating opportunities for Indigenous people. The active human resource management strategies of inclusive leaders might arise from their recognition of the potential benefits such as creativity and innovation that organizations can achieve from a diverse composition of staff (Farndale et al., 2015; Otten & Jansen, 2014). Or it could be argued that inclusive leaders promote diversity because their attitudes, values, and mindsets align with inclusiveness practices and they believe in minority EV and inclusion (Buengeler et al., 2018; Roberson, 2006; Sabharwal, 2014). However, another possible explanation is that inclusive leaders identify with workplace diversity through their own personal experience. In this study, almost all the managers were Indigenous and had the lived experience of being “the other.” They were all committed to creating opportunities for their “people” and understood their challenges. Even the non-Indigenous managers had lived in the region for many years and had developed an understanding and respect for their Indigenous colleagues. This finding extends the current theoretical model of inclusive leadership by not only adding “creating workplace diversity” as a behavior of inclusive leadership, but also by including “building on lived experience” as a key driver of leadership behavior (see Randel et al., 2018). This also suggests that inclusive leadership can be contextual (van Dick et al., 2018).

The second key finding is the need for sensitivity and flexibility in working with Indigenous people to motivate their voice in the workplace (Louis, 2007). The inclusive leaders in this study sought Indigenous voice through proactively asking questions and speaking in “gentle voice” which was described as “quiet,” “not hasty,” and “supportive.” While other studies claim that it is employees who try to strengthen their voice to management (upward voice) by choosing appropriate ways to communicate (Liu et al., 2017; Morrison, 2011), our findings suggest that inclusive leaders can proactively seek voice. Actively seeking voice from subordinates by managers helps remove obstacles for Indigenous employees and values their contribution which in turn promotes their sense of uniqueness (Roberson, 2006; Shore et al., 2011). Equally important is the way leaders expressed their voice to their Indigenous followers such as “gentle speaking” which also included detailed explanations, taking time to understand, and encouraging employees to succeed. In this way, the leaders conformed to the cultural, social, and ethical norms of the Indigenous employees (Louis, 2007). We know that the communication style of leaders impacts on employee behavior (Hickland et al., 2020; Weiss et al., 2018). Our study fills a gap by exploring inclusive leaders’ communication styles with Indigenous employees and demonstrates that inclusive leadership communication can be understood as engaging with, actively listening to, and building confidence and self-esteem for Indigenous employees. In this way, inclusive speaking can be seen to be a characteristic of inclusive leadership behavior as it helps leaders embrace different cultures and languages to engage minority employees in the workplace (Sabharwal, 2014; Shore et al., 2011). Moreover, inclusive leadership behavior in this context could be treated as a motivating factor of voice occurrence (Townsend et al., 2020).

Third, our findings broaden the current understanding of inclusive leadership in the context of Confucian and collectivist cultures where Indigenous people—a marginalized group—are often overlooked in workplace-based studies (IWGIA, 2018). In the context of Confucian and collectivist-influenced countries where the power distance among leaders and followers is high (Nguyen et al., 2018), inclusive leadership can play a crucial role in fostering minority employees’ need for belongingness. This can be done through visible practices of justice and fairness focusing on Indigenous employees (Buengeler et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2011; Tang et al., 2015). While collectivist leadership cultures often emphasize a sense of communality and create a feeling of belonging raising from common interests and goals (Buengeler et al., 2018), there is a danger of the classification of majority and minority employees into “in-groups” and “out-groups.” The different voices from minority employee “out-groups” may be ignored as their voices are weak and often hindered by stereotyping (Brinsfield, 2014; Shen et al., 2009; Strauss, 2006). Furthermore, EV is often limited in organizations in high power distance cultures since employees feel unsafe to express their voice (Kwon & Farndale, 2020). In such contexts, minority voices depend on inclusive leadership behaviors to be heard (Randel et al., 2018).

Practical Implications

The practical implications are twofold: first, we found that diversity, inclusion, and voice practices rested with inclusive leaders and depended heavily on the leaders’ empathy to Indigenous obstacles. In such contexts, diversity, inclusion, and voice practices may fail in some departments of public sector organizations, if departmental managers lack understanding of the benefits of workforce diversity, EV, and inclusion. Hence, we suggest that public sector organizations should strongly promote workplace diversity by providing equal employment to minority groups in general and the Indigenous community in particular. Moreover, senior leaders need to be responsible and accountable for the implementation of these policies within their workplace. Second, diversity and inclusion practices did not lead to successful Indigenous EV on their own. The differences came from inclusive leadership behaviors. Therefore, inclusive leadership needs to be identified, supported, and nurtured. It is argued that understanding inclusive leadership behavior may support managers and leaders to reduce potential conflicts among Indigenous and non-Indigenous employees in the workplace (see Alang et al., 2020) and encourage Indigenous voice and inclusion leading to creativity and innovation.

Limitations

There are limitations to this study. The findings on inclusive leadership behaviors largely reflected Indigenous perspectives which may or may not be able to be generalized to all Vietnamese people. Future research clearly needs to provide deep insights into non-Indigenous perspectives particularly from those in leadership positions. In addition, while this study has extended the concepts of inclusive leadership by providing insights from the context of a Confucian culture, we cannot verify that these findings would be repeated in other contexts. We call for more research from other countries which have Indigenous population. Finally, while this study has demonstrated that inclusive leadership can affect EV, this causality could be tested using quantitative techniques such as a questionnaire survey.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tho Alang

Author Biographies

Dr Tho Alang is a lecturer in the School of Business at Ho Chi Minh City International University (VNUHCMC). He obtains his doctoral degree in management from RMIT University (Melbourne). His research interests include Employee Voice, Inclusion, HRM, and Leadership.

Professor Pauline Stanton is an Honorary Professor of Management at RMIT University in Melbourne Australia. Her research focus is human resource management in healthcare, employee voice and social identity. Her work includes studies in Australia, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. She also has the privilege of working with Indigenous scholars. She is a Co-Editor in Chief of Personnel Review.

Professor Mark Rose is an Aboriginal man traditionally linked to the Gunditjmara Nation of western Victoria. Over the last fifteen years, Mark has held senior academic positions and in 2020 he became the inaugural Pro-Vice Chancellor Indigenous Strategy and Innovation at Deakin University.

References

Alang

Stanton

Trau

R. N.

(2020). Exploring Indigenous employee voice practice: Perspectives from Vietnamese public sector organisations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(4), 555–577.

Badiani

Baulch

Brandt

Dat

Giang

Gibson

Wells-Dang

(2012). Vietnam poverty assessment: Well begun, not yet done—Vietnam’s remarkable progress on poverty reduction and the emerging challenges. World Bank.

Barak

M. E. M.

(1999). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23(3–4), 47–68.

Barry

Wilkinson

(2016). Pro-social or pro-management? A critique of the conception of employee voice as a pro-social behaviour within organizational behaviour. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 54(2), 261–284.

Bell

M. P.

Özbilgin

M. F.

Beauregard

T. A.

Sürgevil

(2011). Voice, silence, and diversity in 21st century organizations: Strategies for inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender employees. Human Resource Management, 50(1), 131–146.

Braun

Clarke

Terry

(2014). Thematic analysis. In Rohleder

Lyons

A. C.

(Ed.), Qualitative research in clinical and health psychology (pp. 95–114). Palgrave Macmillan.

Brewer

M. B.

(1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482.

Brinsfield

(2014). Employee voice and silence in organizational behavior. In Wilkinson

Donaghey

Dundon

Freeman

(Eds.), Handbook of research on employee voice (pp. 114–131). Elgar Press.

Buengeler

Leroy

De Stobbeleir

(2018). How leaders shape the impact of HR’s diversity practices on employee inclusion. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3), 289–303.

10.

Chen

S. J.

Wang

M. J.

Lee

S. H.

(2018). Transformational leadership and voice behaviors: The mediating effect of employee perceived meaningful work. Personnel Review, 47(3), 694–708.

11.

Chilisa

(2012). Indigenous research methodologies. SAGE.

12.

Colgan

Wright

Creegan

McKearney

(2009). Equality and diversity in the public services: Moving forward on lesbian, gay and bisexual equality? Human Resource Management Journal, 19(3), 280–301.

13.

Collins

Nankervis

Sitalaksmi

Warner

(2011). Labour–management relationships in transitional economies: Convergence or divergence in Vietnam and Indonesia? Asia Pacific Business Review, 17(3), 361–377.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.

15.

Diversity Council Australia. (2015). Building inclusion: An evidence-based model of inclusive leadership. https://www.dca.org.au/sites/default/files/dca_inclusive_leadership_synopsis_accessible.pdf

16.

Dundon

Wilkinson

Marchington

Ackers

(2004). The meanings and purpose of employee voice. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(6), 1149–1170.

17.

Eyong

J. E.

(2017). Indigenous African leadership: Key differences from Anglo-centric thinking and writings. Leadership, 13(2), 133–153.

18.

Farndale

Biron

Briscoe

D. R.

Raghuram

(2015). A global perspective on diversity and inclusion in work organisations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 677–687.

19.

Gerard

(2001). From ethnocide to ethnodevelopment? Ethnic minorities and Indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia. Third World Quarterly, 22(3), 413–436.

20.

Green

Thorogood

(2014). Qualitative methods for health research. SAGE.

21.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.

22.

Gupta

(2005). Human rights of Indigenous peoples: Comparative analysis of Indigenous peoples. Gyan Publishing House.

23.

Haar

J. M.

Brougham

(2011). Consequences of cultural satisfaction at work: A study of New Zealand Māori. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 461–475.

24.

Henry

Wolfgramm

(2018). Relational leadership—An Indigenous Māori perspective. Leadership, 14(2), 203–219.

25.

Hickland

Cullinane

Dobbins

Dundon

Donaghey

(2020). Employer silencing in a context of voice regulations: Case studies of non-compliance. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(4), 537–552.

26.

Hofstede

(1985). The interaction between national and organisational value systems. Journal of Management Studies, 22(4), 347–357.

27.

Hunter

B. H.

Hawke

A. E.

(2001). A comparative analysis of the industrial relations experiences of Indigenous and other Australian workers. Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(1), 44–65.

28.

Ingraham

P. W.

Getha-Taylor

(2004). Leadership in the public sector: Models and assumptions for leadership development in the federal government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 24(2), 95–112.

29.

The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. (2018). The Indigenous world 2018.

30.

Jansen

W. S.

Otten

Zee

K. I.

Jans

(2014). Inclusion: Conceptualization and measurement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 370–385.

31.

Kensington-Miller

Ratima

(2015). Māori in partnership: A peer mentoring model for tertiary Indigenous staff in New Zealand. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(6), 813–833.

32.

Kwon

Farndale

(2020). Employee voice viewed through a cross-cultural lens. Human Resource Management Review, 30(1), Article 100653.

33.

Liggans

Attoh

P. A.

Gong

Chase

Russell

M. B.

Clark

P. W.

(2019). Military veterans in federal agencies: Organizational inclusion, human resource practices, and trust in leadership as predictors of organizational commitment. Public Personnel Management, 48(3), 413–437.

34.

Liu

Song

Liao

(2017). Why and when leaders’ affective states influence employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 238–263.

35.

Louis

R. P.

(2007). Can you hear us now? Voices from the margin: Using Indigenous methodologies in geographic research. Geographical Research, 45(2), 130–139.

36.

Marchington

Kynighou

(2012). The dynamics of employee involvement and participation during turbulent times. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(16), 3336–3354.

37.

Mika

J. P.

O’Sullivan

J. G.

(2014). A Māori approach to management: Contrasting traditional and modern Māori management practices in Aotearoa New Zealand. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(5), 648–670.

38.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE.

39.

Milliken

F. J.

Martins

L. L.

(1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.

40.

Morrison

E. W.

(2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412.

41.

NAFOSTED. (2018). Meeting for evaluating and selecting research projects in social science areas in 2018. https://nafosted.gov.vn/hoi-nghi-trien-khai-danh-gia-xet-chon-de-tai-nghien-cuu-co-ban-thuoc-linh-vuc-khoa-hoc-xa-hoi-va-nhan-van-tai-tro-dot-2-nam-2018/

42.

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.

43.

E. S.

(2008). Why organizations choose to manage diversity? Toward a leadership-based theoretical framework. Human Resource Development Review, 7(1), 58–78.

44.

E. S.

Barker

(2014). Managing diversity through effective communication. In Miller

V. D.

Gordon

M. E.

(Eds.), Meeting the challenge of human resource management: A communication perspective (pp. 192–203). Routledge.

45.

Nguyen

D. T.

Teo

Mylett

(2013). An exploration of the roles of HR departments in Vietnam. Journal of General Management, 39(2), 83–113.

46.

Nguyen

D. T.

Teo

S. T.

Grover

S. L.

Nguyen

N. P.

(2018). Respect, bullying, and public sector work outcomes in Vietnam. Public Management Review, 21(6), 863–889.

47.

Oswick

Noon

(2014). Discourses of diversity, equality and inclusion: Trenchant formulations or transient fashions? British Journal of Management, 25(1), 23–39.

48.

Otten

Jansen

W. S.

(2014). Predictors and consequences of exclusion and inclusion at the culturally diverse workplace. In Otten

K. I.

Zee

V. D.

Brewer

M. B.

(Eds.), Towards inclusive organizations: Determinants of successful diversity management at work (pp. 67–86). Psychology Press.

49.

Ozyilmaz

Taner

(2018). Communication skills shape voice effects in organizations. The Service Industries Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2018.1506444

50.

Pelled

L. H.

Ledford

G. E.

Jr. Albers Mohrman

(1999). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36(7), 1013–1031.

51.

Randel

A. E.

Galvin

B. M.

Shore

L. M.

Ehrhart

K. H.

Chung

B. G.

Dean

M. A.

Kedharnath

(2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203.

52.

Roberson

Q. M.

(2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236.

53.

Ruwhiu

Elkin

(2016). Converging pathways of contemporary leadership: In the footsteps of Māori and servant leadership. Leadership, 12(3), 308–323.

54.

Sabharwal

(2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197–217.

55.

Shen

Chanda

D’Netto

Monga

(2009). Managing diversity through human resource management: An international perspective and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2), 235–251.

56.

Shore

L. M.

Cleveland

J. N.

Sanchez

(2018). Inclusive workplaces: A review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189.

57.

Shore

L. M.

Randel

A. E.

Chung

B. G.

Dean

M. A.

Holcombe Ehrhart

Singh

(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289.

58.

Strauss

(2006). Worker participation—Some under-considered issues. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 45(4), 778–803.

59.

Tang

Jiang

Chen

Zhou

Chen

C. C.

(2015). Inclusion and inclusion management in the Chinese context: An exploratory study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(6), 856–874.

60.

Townsend

Wilkinson

Dundon

Mowbray

P. K.

(2020). Tracking employee voice: Developing the concept of voice pathways. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12271

61.

United Nations. (2010). The millennium development goals report. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/publications/millennium-development-goals-report-2010.html

62.

van Dick

Lemoine

J. E.

Steffens

N. K.

Kerschreiter

Akfirat

S. A.

Avanzi

Giessner

(2018). Identity leadership going global: Validation of the identity leadership inventory across 20 countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(4), 697–728.

63.

Wang

Gan

(2016). LMX and employee voice: A moderated mediation model of psychological empowerment and role clarity. Personnel Review, 45(3), 605–015.

64.

Weiss

Kolbe

Grote

Spahn

D. R.

Grande

(2018). We can do it! Inclusive leader language promotes voice behavior in multi-professional teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(3), 389–402.

65.

Wilkinson

Dundon

Donaghey

Freeman

R. B.

(2014). Employee voice: Charting new terrain. In Wilkinson

Dundon

Freeman

(Eds.), Handbook of research on employee voice (pp. 1–6). Edward Elgar.