Organizational inclusion and academics’ psychological contract. Can responsible leadership mediate the relationship?

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-01-2019-0014
• Published date: 07 October 2019
• Pages: 126-144
• Date: 07 October 2019
• Author: Mohamed Mousa
• Subject Matter: Hr & organizational behaviour,Employment law

Organizational inclusion and

academics’psychological contract

Can responsible leadership

mediate the relationship?

Mohamed Mousa

Rabat Business School, Université Internationale de Rabat, Rabat, Morocco and

Oulu Business School, Oulun Yliopisto, Oulu, Finland

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to focus on three Egyptian public business schools in an attempt to

explore the impact of organizational inclusion on the psychological contract with academics through the

mediating the role of responsible leadership.

Design/methodology/approach –A total of 330 academics were contacted and given a set of questionnaires.

After three follow-ups, a total of 240 responses were collected with a response rate of 72.73 percent. Multiple

regressions were employed to indicate the level of variation in the types of psychological contract can be

explained by organizational inclusion and responsible leadership.

Findings –The findings highlighted a positive impact for organizational inclusion on the psychological

contract with academics through mediating responsible leadership or, in other words, the statistical analysis

showed that responsible leadership has a role in mediating the relationship between the organizational

inclusion of academics and their psychological contract type.

Originality/value –This paper contributes by filling a gap in HR management and higher education

literature in which empirical studies on the relationship between organizational inclusion, responsible

leadership and the psychological contract with academics have been limited until now. This may create better

research opportunities for cross-disciplinary papers by scholars of HR, higher education and leadership.

Keywords Academic staff, Organizational inclusion, Psychological contract, Responsible leadership, Egypt

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

The challenges of the ageing population, immigration and demographic shifts around the

world have expanded the discourse on inclusion than ever before. Stoermer et al. (2016)

highlight that many international organizations, such as the US Census Bureau (2012) and

DESTATIS (2013), have considered inclusion research as a strategic socio-cultural and

organizational reality. Mousa and Puhakka (2019) assert that the discourse about equality/

inequality, in-out group comparisons, intergroup relations and social justice constitutes the

main features of today’s social life. Furthermore, inclusion-related aspects have underscored

a research opportunity for academic scholars across various academic disciplines (Holck

et al., 2016). Moreover, the concept of inclusion appeared first in the USA and subsequently

found a space in the academia of other western countries as a rebranding for the concepts of

equality, equity and diversity management (Wrench, 2005; Ylostola, 2016). Noon (2007)

points out that cultural diversity problems are a result of ineffective inclusion practices (e.g.

discrimination in terms of age, gender, religion, political ideology, place of origin and others)

organizations undertake. This may justify why Knights and Omanović(2016) criticize those

who think that cultural diversity practices are simply limited to effective workplace

communication and intercultural training while neglecting the management of inequalities

originating from differences in race, gender, religion and others.

In differentiating between workplace diversity and inclusion, Daya (2014) defines

workplace diversity as “all visible”(age, gender, race, etc.) and “invisible”(sexual orientation,

income, education,work experience, etc.)differences that exist betweenemployees in the same

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 39 No. 2, 2020

pp. 126-144

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-01-2019-0014

Received 14 January 2019

Revised 23 July 2019

4 September 2019

Accepted 5 September 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

126

EDI

39,2

work setting, while inclusion can be described as the recognition, respect and acceptance of

employeedifferences for the bettermentof the organization theywork in. Cox (2001), Roberson

(2006) and Kreitz (2008) outline that diversity reflects the different demographic composition

individuals have in their workplace, whereas inclusion describes the psychological feelings

employees perceive when being fully accepted, respected and equally treated in their

workplace. Elizabeth Broderick & Co. (2016) emphasize that organizations should expect

positive outcomes from their diverse workforce if they successfully represent all societal

communities in theirinternal workforce, assert equal employment opportunities in recruiting

staff and consider diversity as a mechanism toward innovation, creativity and social

responsibility. Otten and Jansen (2015) indicate that workplace diversity represents a small

picture of the overall surrounding society, and, consequently, organizations should expect

interpersonal conflict and feelings of distrust from time to time.

In the organizational context, Human (2005) and Booysen (2007) confirm that

organizational inclusion should entail collaboration between leaders and staff in HR,

marketing and financial affairs. They show that any management of inclusion starts by

defining what inclusion is in every organization’s internal setting. This is constantly

followed by constituting an inclusion strategy and considering it as part of the overall

corporate/organizational strategy. This may alleviate any cultural bias such as workplace

discrimination, prejudice and feelings of organizational ostracis m (Thomas, 2002).

Apparently, many organizations link their inclusion management strategy with reward

systems, HR policies and evaluation measures (Schultz et al., 2008). It is worth highlighting

that Mor Barak (2000) asserts that inclusion has been constantly shaped by personal norms,

attitudes toward diversity and organizational culture that handles employees’feelings of

insider-ness. Understandably, Shore et al. (2011) assert that an employee’s level of inclusion

affects his or her level of organizational commitment, job satisfaction and performance.

Despite its significance, and to the best of the author’s knowledge, there is a dearth of

empirical studies on the relationship between organizational inclusion and employee–employer

links, which are academically referred to as employment relations. Furthermore, and in addition

to organizational inclusion, Rodwell and Ellershaw (2015) indicate that any understanding or

management of employee–employer relationships depends primarily on the psychological

contract, which comprises an implicit and/or explicit exchange agreement between the

employee and his or her employer, through which the employee anticipates tangible (e.g. pay)

and/or intangible benefits (e.g. training) in accordance with the tangible (e.g. hard work) and/or

intangible (e.g. organizational commitment) courses of action that his employer perceives from

him or her. Essentially, it has been argued that the psychological contract and its related

mutual obligations are major determinants of employee job-related attitudes and, subsequently,

also behavior (Guest, 2004). Moreover, Zhao et al. (2007) assert that it represents the guiding

force for employee–employer emotional attachment. Furthermore, any breach of the

employee–employer psychological contract may harm or negatively affect positive

management phenomena, such as organizational commitment, organizational engagement,

organizational involvement, trust and organizational citizenship behavior (Dulac et al., 2008).

Thompson and Bunderson (2003) clarify that the psychological contract is a work-related

dynamic on which different organizations can depend to survive and subsequently prosper.

Accordingly and given the aforementioned, the authors of the present study seek to fill

the gap in both HR and higher education literature through exploring the relationship

between organizational inclusion and the psychological contract in the context of

Egyptian public business schools, which has not been addressed and analyzed before. The

impetus of this research emerges from its focus on academics in Egyptian public business

schools, which provide the lowest quality of management education globally according to

the 2017 global competitiveness report (www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/0

5FullReport/TheGlobal CompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf). The remainder of

127

Academics’

psychological

contract