Introduction

With teams playing an increasingly critical role as the fundamental unit for organizational innovation, team innovation performance has received a considerable amount of scholarly attention (Lyu et al. 2022; van Knippenberg 2017; Zhang et al. 2022). Innovation within teams is not only the individual contributions’ sum, but the result of interactive and catalytic processes of teamwork. By combining the various knowledge, perspectives, and experiences of members, teams can create synergistic effects that ultimately lead to better innovation performance (van Knippenberg 2017). However, diversity in teams could also lead to challenges. Existing research suggests that diversity in team composition (e.g., differences in academic background) does not always have positive outcomes, rather it can result in interpersonal friction, reduced effectiveness and even conflict (van Knippenberg, 2017) (Caldwell and Atwal 2003). These issues are especially salient as the employees’ new generation (those born after 1980) has emerged as a dominant force in the area of innovation. This cohort places more emphasis on intrinsic motivation and personal development, which introduces more complexities for team leaders (Zhang et al. 2024). Accordingly, identifying effective ways to manage these challenges and increase team innovation performance has become an important research priority.

A growing research shows that different leadership styles can improve team innovation performance, such as temporal leadership (Lyu et al. 2022), paradoxical leadership (Zhang et al. 2022), transformational leadership (Eisenbeiss et al. 2008), humble leadership (Leblanc et al. 2022), and empowering leadership (Tang et al. 2020). Nevertheless, these approaches often fall short when it comes to simultaneously meeting the basic requirements of team members for both belongingness and uniqueness, two essential conditions for active involvement in innovative activities (van Knippenberg, 2017). For example, transformational leaders often focus on articulation of the vision, emphasizing their own charisma, personal success and aspirations for the future (Galvin et al. 2010). While such behaviors might be motivating, they are not necessarily fostering a robust sense of inclusion or belonging among team members (Randel et al. 2018). Furthermore, although transformational leadership recognizes the value of individuals (Avolio and Bass 2004), it often depends on ongoing development and the integration of individuals into a common collective identity, where personal interests are aligned with organizational goals (Randel et al. 2018). Empowering leadership, conversely, focuses on autonomy and decentralized decision-making, but it does not necessarily create a sense of acceptance among the team (Kasapoğlu Tankutay and Çolak 2025; Randel et al. 2018). Similarly, servant leadership puts a strong emphasis on employee growth and well-being (He and Guo 2025), but its focus on development opportunities may come at the expense of emphasizing the importance of making sure that individuals feel both socially accepted and encouraged to express their unique perspectives during collaborative processes (Randel et al. 2018). In contrast, inclusive leadership explicitly fosters both belongingness, which is the sense of acceptance to the group, and uniqueness, which is the sense of appreciation of individuals’ distinctive attributes and contributions (Korkmaz et al. 2022; Randel et al. 2018; Shore et al. 2011). By encouraging an environment where members feel valued and are encouraged to share diverse viewpoints, inclusive leadership is especially well-suited to leverage cognitive diversity while upholding team cohesion (Liu et al. 2024). This double emphasis strengthens trust, cohesion and commitment, while fostering the exchange of non-redundant knowledge, thus boosting the team’s ability for generating innovative solutions (Ye et al. 2019). Given these mechanisms, inclusive leadership may provide a sounder basis for encouraging team innovation than other leadership styles, especially in contexts where there is a need to strike a balance between unity and diversity in order to achieve creative outcomes. Although there has been a rapid growth in investigation on inclusive leadership and innovation, most of the current research has been carried out at the individual level. Moreover, these studies mainly focus on the ability of inclusive leadership to improve innovation-related outcomes through mechanisms such as self-efficacy (Fang et al. 2019), psychological safety (Carmeli et al. 2010; Javed, Naqvi, et al. 2019), and affective commitment (Sürücü et al. 2023). Additional mediating processes, such as psychological empowerment (Javed, Abdullah, et al. 2019), and contextual moderators, such as inclusion climate (Zhong et al. 2022), have also been investigated. In contrast, research in innovation performance at the team level is relatively limited. In practice, however, leaders influence the team as a whole rather than isolated individuals (Gong et al. 2025; Zaccaro et al. 2001). Some recent research has started to fill this gap. For instance, Ye et al. (2019) based on goal-setting theory, found that inclusive leadership promotes team innovation by promoting team voice. From a standpoint of a social exchange, Duc and Tho (2023) demonstrated that inclusive leadership fosters team innovation by reinforcing a common psychological contract. Similarly, Liu et al. (2024), using the IPO framework, showed that the leadership of inclusive leadership enhances team innovation by forming a supportive diversity climate. Jia et al. (2022), based on the componential theory of creativity, further revealed that inclusive leadership endorses team innovation by empowering team members. Despite these contributions, there are important gaps. In particular, there has been a little focus on the role of inclusive leadership in facilitating team innovation in terms of innovation project failure, a critical yet underexplored situation where teams must adapt, learn from setbacks and develop novel solutions.

To fill this void, we propose a moderated mediation model, based on Team Regulation Theory (TRT). TRT suggests that contextual factors affect the way teams continually regulate shared cognitions, goals, and behavioral patterns (DeShon et al. 2004). Building on this view, we argue that inclusive leadership contributes to team innovation performance by supporting team learning from failures. Team learning from failures is a collective process where team members collectively analyze the causes of failure, draw pertinent lessons, and make behavioral improvements (Shepherd et al. 2011). Failures are often the result of teams trying new ways or processes (Carmeli, 2007). Inclusive leadership, marked by fairness, valuing diverse contributions, and accepting mistakes (Fang et al. 2019; Randel et al. 2018), encourages teams to engage in collective reflection rather than individual blame (Atuahene et al. 2024; Meeuwissen et al. 2021). Such an environment helps relieve fear and psychological pressure, foster constructive interactions between team members (Kucharska and Erickson 2023; Lyu et al. 2022), and enable team members to systematically analyze problems, correct errors, and engage in mutual learning (Gino et al. 2010; Shaik et al. 2023; Tao et al. 2025). As a result, these processes foster creativity and create favorable conditions for enhanced team innovation performance.

However, inclusive leadership is not universally effective. Prior research suggests that its positive impact may be attenuated when team members fail to recognize the value of diversity (Leroy et al. 2022) or when teams exhibit excessively high levels of diversity (Ma and Tang 2022). From the perspective of TRT, the effects of situational factors on team regulation depend on specific team characteristics (Chen et al. 2009; DeShon et al. 2004). In this study, we suggest that team career calling strengthens the positive relationship between inclusive leadership and team learning from failures. Team career calling reflects members’ strong passion for their work and their intrinsic desire to contribute meaningfully to the team (Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas 2011). Teams marked by a higher level of career calling are more likely to recognize and value inclusive leadership behaviors, interpreting them as opportunities to learn from failure and improve overall effectiveness (Liu et al. 2024; Xu et al. 2023). In contrast, teams with lower levels of career calling may exhibit weaker motivation for self-improvement (Duffy and Dik 2013). Such teams are more inclined to depend on leaders for problem resolution rather than actively engaging in collective learning from failure experiences (Liu et al. 2024).

This study has several key contributions. First, it highlights the critical role of bottom-up leadership in enhancing team innovation performance. In particular, inclusive leadership fosters innovation by strengthening new-generation employees’ sense of belonging and enabling them to realize their full potential. Second, this research adopts the perspective of TRT to elucidate how inclusive leadership drives team innovation. Precisely, we propose that inclusive leaders facilitate team learning from failures by cultivating a psychologically safe environment and promoting collaborative interactions. These conditions, in turn, support the creative ideas’ effective implementation. Accordingly, we suggest that leaders seeking to improve team innovation should prioritize the advancement of their teams’ capacity to learn from failure. Third, this study introduces team career calling as a vital boundary condition within the proposed research model. A high level of team career calling strengthens the positive impact of inclusive leadership on team learning from failures, which then leads to improved team innovation performance. In this way, our findings highlight the significance of team career calling as a critical team characteristic that shapes the leadership’s effectiveness.

Theoretical background and hypotheses development

TRT

DeShon et al. (2004) were the first to introduce TRT, proposing that team regulation processes function in a manner analogous to individual self-regulation. Specifically, situational conditions influence how team members allot their personal resources and enact behaviors in chase of both individual and collective goals. The aggregation of these cognitive and behavioral adjustments across members constitutes the overall team regulation process. Through constant interaction and mutual influence, members of the team become a dynamic and interdependent regulatory system (DeShon et al. 2004). Subsequent research has led to the further development of TRT. For instance, Chen et al. (2009) indicated that team-level motivation is as important to team regulatory processes as is individual-level motivation. Moreover, team regulation is not static, rather it is an evolving process that is continually influenced by situational contingencies and recalibrated to improve team effectiveness (Konradt et al. 2016; Konradt et al. 2015).

Leaders can help teams to accomplish results bigger than the sum of the parts (ability or efforts of the individual members) (Gong et al. 2025; Zaccaro et al. 2001). This view is in line with the IPO framework, which conceptualizes leader behaviors as important team inputs. Such inputs can make, limit, or structure team processes, which are defined as patterns of interaction that influence the cognitive, affective, and motivational states of members. In turn, these processes (e.g., team learning from failure) are the mechanisms through which team inputs (e.g., inclusive leadership) are converted into outcomes (e.g., team innovation performance) (Leblanc et al. 2022; McGrath 1984).

Building on this theoretical sequencing of the IPO framework, this study draws on TRT to more clearly elucidate how inclusive leadership leads to enhanced team innovation performance. TRT further posits that team regulation is jointly influenced by contextual contingencies and team characteristics, with important implications for team outcomes (Chen et al. 2009; DeShon et al. 2004). Team leaders give direction cues about collective goals and expected behaviors and their actions give indications of organizational values and expectations to team members (Dartey-Baah and Addo 2019). In response, team members continually alter their cognitions, attitudes and behaviors to match these cues, thus enabling better team innovation performance.

Team innovation performance and inclusive leadership

Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) define inclusive leadership as an approach that encourages employees to voice their views, is receptive to employee ideas and recognizes their contributions in a timely manner. Similarly, according to Hollander (2009), inclusive leadership is a collaborative form of leadership that actively engages followers and promotes mutual influence by taking into account their needs and expectations. Carmeli et al. (2010) go further to define inclusive leadership as a primary form of relational leadership, manifested by leader’s openness, availability, and accessibility during interactions with subordinates. From perspective of intrinsic needs, Shore et al. (2011) suggests that inclusive leadership increases the sense of inclusion of subordinates through addressing the two dimensions, uniqueness and belongingness. Supporting this view, Randel et al. (2018) suggest that inclusive leadership works by meeting these dual needs. They identify three behaviors that enhance the sense of belonging among members: offering support, fostering an equitable and fair team climate and encouraging shared decision-making. In addition, they point out two behaviors that respond to the need for uniqueness among members: encouraging individuals to add to the team and allowing them to utilize their unique strengths to make the team more effective. Subsequent research further highlights that the value of inclusive leadership goes beyond simple integration (Korkmaz et al. 2022). It enhances innovation and performance by heartening team members to challenge existing norms, involve in experimentation, and tolerate failure (Fang et al. 2025).

Team innovation performance is the results of a team’s innovation efforts and is an indicator of the quality and efficiency of the team’s innovation activities (Ancona and Caldwell 1992). It captures the degree to which a team attains its objectives of innovation. Important elements in assessing team innovation performance are the innovative capabilities of the team and the performance of enacting behaviors related to innovation (Gray 2001; van Knippenberg 2017). We posit that inclusive leadership can shape team innovation performance by strengthening both team innovation capabilities and the expression of innovative behaviors. Unlike the hierarchical approach to leadership, the inclusive leadership approach mainly focuses on enabling and facilitating team members (Hollander 2009), giving them the autonomy, flexibility, resources and decision-making authority needed to get the job done (Carmeli et al. 2010). By appreciating individual differences and encouraging the expression of diverse perspectives (Randel et al. 2018), (Liu et al. 2024) inclusive leaders form an environment where team members feel safe to experiment with new ideas without fear of criticism (Carmeli et al. 2010; Hollander, 2009). This inclusive climate ensures that the unique contribution of members is appreciated and minimizes the need for strict consensus, which boosts the team’s capability to produce, advocate and implement innovative solutions (Ye et al. 2019). Furthermore, previous studies propose that inclusive leadership can foster team creativity by means such as team empowerment (Jia et al. 2022) and psychological safety (Carmeli et al. 2010). It can also foster innovation behaviors among the team members by reinforcing a common team psychological contract (Duc & Tho, 2023) and promoting active employee voice (Ye et al. 2019). Building on these considerations, we offer the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Inclusive leadership positively influences team innovation performance.

Team learning from failures as a mediator

Learning from failures is a collective reflection and interaction in the wake of project failures (Shepherd et al. 2011). Through this process, individuals and teams advance a better comprehension of the causes of failure, with the ultimate goal of recalibrating behaviors to minimize the chance of recurrence. As a key concept of organizational learning, learning from failures represents a form of double-loop learning (Carmeli 2007). Unlike single-loop learning, which is concerned with making immediate adjustments to routine practices to correct errors, double-loop learning transcends existing rules and procedures. It involves the systematic diagnosis of the root causes of failure and tying these insights into organizational values and strategic priorities to realign organizational culture and the behaviors of its members (Argyris and Schn 1978). At the individual level, learning from failure is a largely subjective process of meaning making. At the team level, it focuses on social interaction and collaborative problem-solving. Team members share and deconstruct setbacks together to gain a shared comprehension of each team member’s view of the causes of failure. They then collaborate to resolve these issues (Shepherd et al. 2011). This collaborative approach aids teams to identify the root causes, assess their impact on team objectives, and derive lessons that go beyond individual understandings, creating a shared understanding of challenges and potential solutions (Shaik et al. 2023).

TRT emphasizes the dynamic adaptation of team cognition, goals and behaviors in response to environmental cues (DeShon et al. 2004). Within this framework, leaders are critical situational influences on team members (Zaccaro et al. 2001). Accordingly, we suggest that inclusive leadership enables team learning from failure by creating the conditions for open discussion, reflection and improvement. Inclusive leadership nurtures psychological safety, trust, knowledge sharing, and collaborative reflection, which creates an atmosphere where team members are comfortable talking about mistakes, learning from them and improving processes. By fostering a safe and supportive work environment (Korkmaz et al. 2022; Randel et al. 2018), inclusive leadership alleviates fear of failure (Carmeli 2007), encourages team members to confront their errors (Fang et al. 2025) and encourages them to pursue opportunities for improvement (Hirak et al. 2012). This leadership style also indorses a culture of learning, where teams can see failures as valuable learning experiences (Gong et al. 2025; Meeuwissen et al. 2021). Within such an environment, team members indulge in in-depth reflection and systematic analysis after experiencing setbacks (Grohnert et al. 2019). In addition, inclusive leadership improves trust (Hollander 2009) and open communication (Randel et al. 2018) to promote the exchange of knowledge and experiences between team members (Carmeli et al. 2010; Morinaga et al. 2023). This enables members to benefit from each other’s insights and past experiences (Atuahene et al. 2024; Shepherd et al. 2011). Finally, through valuing collaboration (Hollander 2009), inclusive leadership promotes teams to collectively reflect on failures and identify collective strategies for learning and improvement (Fang et al. 2025; Zhong et al. 2022).

We suggest further that team learning from failure can make a substantial contribution to team innovation performance. This form of learning entails the analysis of the causes of failures, reflection on the existing behaviors, and identification of knowledge gaps (Shepherd et al. 2011). By sharing newly acquired insights within the team, members stimulate creative thinking and innovative behaviours, enabling the team to achieve higher levels of innovation. Learning through failures is especially useful in creating competitive advantage as it promotes both creativity and innovative behaviors among team members (Shaik et al. 2023). While learning from past successes can refine established practices and sustain competitive advantages (Argote et al. 1990), an overreliance on successes may lead to strategic rigidity and constrain innovative thinking (Baumard and Starbuck 2005). In contrast, failures are a way of bringing latent issues to light, exposing flaws in seemingly effective practices, and experimenting with new behaviors of undertaking things that are more effective (Shepherd et al. 2011). Through error correction, individuals are aware of the limitations of existing knowledge and adopt exploratory strategies for the acquisition of knowledge at multiple levels (Scott and Vessey 2000). Such content-rich learning encourages the integration of diverse knowledge (Rhaiem and Amara 2021) and stimulates the internal knowledge creation (Tao et al. 2025), leading to innovative knowledge and technologies for the enhancement of creativity (Gino et al. 2010). Additionally, the process of tracing the causes of problems and reflecting on existing behaviors fosters divergent thinking that enables employees to have novel and differentiated ideas (Lyu et al. 2022; Shaik et al. 2023). These unique ideas, which are often tacit in nature, are key to innovation (Ganguly et al. 2019; Holcomb et al. 2009). When team members share and discuss these insights with their colleagues and implement them in their work, they further stimulate innovative thinking and enhance execution capabilities (Cui et al. 2023; Kucharska and Erickson 2023). Based on this reasoning, we put forward the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Team learning from failures mediates the positive relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation performance.

Moderating role of team career calling

Numerous studies have shown that inclusive leadership has a great benefit for organizations. For example, it improves team creativity (Jia et al. 2022) and foster innovation (Duc and Tho 2023; Liu et al. 2024; Ye et al. 2019). However, there is also evidence that inclusive leadership is not universally effective and may have unintended negative consequences in some contexts. For instance, Leroy et al. (2022) suggest that when teams do not appreciate the value of diversity, the role of inclusive leadership may actually diminish team creativity. Similarly, Ma and Tang (2022) find that in teams with excessive diversity, inclusive leadership can be linked with lower levels of team engagement, which in turn reduces the outcomes of innovation. These findings emphasize the relevance of gaining a better understanding of the circumstances in which inclusive leadership is very effective.

Previous research indicates that team members’ motivation can moderate the effectiveness of team leadership (Leblanc et al. 2022; Xu et al. 2023). Extending this insight, we propose that inclusive leadership is more effective in facilitating team learning from failures when team members exhibit high levels of career calling. Career calling represents a sustained affective connection to one’s vocational mission and value system over the course of a career (Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas 2011). It encompasses a strong sense of purpose, perceived influence, and meaningfulness in one’s work, along with identification with the broader social value of one’s occupation (Duffy and Dik 2013; Duffy and Sedlacek 2007), (Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas 2011; Elangovan et al. 2010). Individuals with a strong career calling tend to feel a heightened sense of responsibility for their tasks, team objectives, and the organization as a whole (Hall and Chandler 2005; Hirschi 2012). Consequently, they are more willing to contribute actively to team efforts (Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas 2011) and engage proactively in collaborative behaviors aimed at improving the efficiency of the work flow and overall productivity (Duffy and Dik 2013). At the team level, career calling indicates the collective existence of members with a high degree of motivation by their vocational calling (Buis et al. 2019), influencing the team’s overall readiness to use inclusive leadership for learning and innovation.

TRT provides additional insight into how team career calling affects the effectiveness of inclusive leadership. According to TRT, team motivation, such as team career calling, shapes how teams interpret a leader’s behaviors, prompting members to adjust their cognitions and actions accordingly (Chen et al. 2009; DeShon et al. 2004). Teams with high levels of career calling are more likely to embrace inclusive leaders who promote learning from failures to enhance team effectiveness. On one hand, team members with strong career calling demonstrate heightened enthusiasm for work and a robust identification with the value of their contributions to both the team and the organization (Duffy and Dik 2013; Liu et al. 2024). Moreover, inclusive leadership nurtures this engagement by enabling members to leverage their unique strengths (Randel et al. 2018; Shore et al. 2011), thereby increasing their motivational investment (Xu et al. 2023). Consequently, these members are more inclined to analyze the causes of task failures and implement solutions that improve team performance (Zafar et al. 2023). Conversely, teams with high career calling are interested in finding deeper meaning and value in their work (Elangovan et al. 2010), so they are more eager to learn and share knowledge collaboratively (Buis et al. 2019). Inclusive leadership strengthens this openness by creating a climate that is psychologically safe to make reasonable mistakes so that members can freely share mistakes and lessons learned (Fang et al. 2019). This process is in turn strengthening the team learning from failures. By contrast, low career calling teams may get little benefit from inclusive leadership. Such teams often are satisfied with the status quo, have little intrinsic motivation to improve productivity, and may not respond positively to the encouragement and support of inclusive leaders (Elangovan et al. 2010), (Liu et al. 2024), (Xu et al. 2023). Members of these teams typically exhibit lower accountability for their work (Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas 2011; Duffy and Dik 2013) and may rely heavily on leaders to identify causes and solutions when tasks fail. In sum, team career calling shapes how members perceive and respond to inclusive leadership: high career calling amplifies its positive effects on team learning from failures, whereas low career calling limits the leader’s influence. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Team career calling moderates the link between team learning from failures and inclusive leadership, such that higher levels of team career calling strengthen the positive effect of inclusive leadership on team learning from failures.

Building on Hypotheses 2 and 3, we propose a moderated mediation model in which team learning from failures mediates the relationship between inclusive leadership and team innovation performance, and this indirect effect is contingent on team career calling.

Hypothesis 4: Indirect effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation performance via team learning from failures is moderated by team career calling, such that the mediation is robust when team career calling is high.

Figure 1 shows the research model.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Research model.

Methods

Procedure and participants

Data collection was conducted with the support of Sojump, a professional survey provider based in China. Questionnaires were distributed to 100 full-time work teams that met four predefined criteria: (i) all team members were new-generation employees born after 1980, (ii) they belonged to a formal organizational team, (iii) they collaborated to complete work tasks, and (iv) their work involved innovation. Before participation, teams were informed about the study procedures and guaranteed that all responses would be used for research purposes only, and kept confidential. The main study was conducted with a three-wave, time-lagged design, with surveys carried out at four-week intervals. At Time 1, questionnaires were distributed to 552 members across 100 teams to assess team career calling, inclusive leadership, and demographic characteristics and 503 valid responses were obtained from 91 teams. At Time 2 only those teams that had complete Time 1 responses were included and 478 valid responses from 87 teams were received for the learning of the team from failure. At Time 3, team innovation performance was measured among teams that participated in Time 2. 400 valid questionnaires were collected from 77 teams with team size of 3 to 9 members.

In the final sample, 67.5% of the respondents were males and 32.5% were females. Regarding age, 20.4% were 25 years or younger, 51.0% were aged 26 to 30 years, 25.5% were aged 31 to 40 years, and 3.1% were aged 41 years or older. In terms of educational attainment, 37.3% had a junior college degree or less, 55.3% had a bachelor’s degree, and 7.5% had postgraduate education. Regarding work experience, 6.0% had less than two years, 50.0% had 2–5 years, 39.3% had 6–10 years, and 4.8% had 11 years or more of work experience.

Measures

In this study, all constructs were measured with established, psychometrically validated scales from previous research. All survey items were translated from English to Chinese utilizing a translation-back translation procedure, which was conducted in a collaborative effort by one English proficient professor and two doctoral students.

Inclusive leadership

This style was measured using a nine-item scale derived from Carmeli et al. (2010), which includes three dimensions: accessibility, availability, and openness. Participants rated each item on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating more inclusive leadership displayed by supervisors. A sample item is: “Team leader is open to talk about the desired goals and new approaches to accomplish them.” Cronbach’s α for the scale was 0.740.

Team learning from failures

Team learning from failures was evaluated on a five-item scale adapted from Carmeli (2007), which measures the degree to which team members openly discuss, reflect on, and learn from mistakes or unsuccessful experiences. Items were scored on the same five-point Likert scale, with higher scores reflecting greater tendencies toward learning from failures. A sample item is: “When I make a mistake or a misstep, I share it with my coworkers and learn together.” Cronbach’s α was 0.760.

Team career calling

This variable was measured by the 12-item instrument adapted from Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas (2011). The scale assesses the extent to which members of the team have a sense of meaningfulness, purpose, and dedication in their current work. Responses were made on the same five-point Likert scale, with higher scores showing greater team career calling. A sample item is: “I am willing to have sacrifices for the current job.” Cronbach’s α was 0.835.

Team innovation performance

This variable was measured utilizing a six-item scale adapted from Tjosvold et al. (2004), assessing the team’s innovation-related capabilities and behaviors. Participants responded on the same five-point Likert scale, with higher scores showing greater team innovation performance. A sample item is: “This team is constantly finding innovative ways to apply existing knowledge of familiar products and techniques, which in turn allows it to develop new ways of solving common and routine problems.” Cronbach’s α was 0.705.

Control variables

Following prior research, we included average team age, team size, and average team tenure as control variables, as these factors have been shown to influence team innovation (Duc and Tho 2023; Leblanc et al. 2022).

Analytical Strategies

First, because all four focal constructs were conceptualized at the team level and rated by team members, within-team responses were aggregated to create team-level scores. The aggregation statistics were as follows: for inclusive leadership, ICC1 = 0.362, ICC2 = 0.746, and Rwg = 0.927; for team learning from failures, ICC1 = 0.288, ICC2 = 0.677, and Rwg = 0.940; for team career calling, ICC1 = 0.385, ICC2 = 0.765, and Rwg = 0.965; and for team innovation performance, ICC1 = 0.420, ICC2 = 0.790, and Rwg = 0.934. All constructs met established aggregation criteria (ICC1 > 0.12, ICC2 > 0.60, Rwg > 0.70; Bliese, 2000; Glick, 1985), supporting their aggregation to the team level.

Second, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were calculated in SPSS 26, and Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to examine potential common method bias (CMB).

Third, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in Mplus 7.4 to examine discriminant validity among the focal constructs, and CMB was additionally examined using an Unmeasured Latent Method Construct (ULMC).

Finally, hypotheses were tested with SEM in Mplus 7.4. SEM enables simultaneous investigation of multiple hypothesized paths and complex mechanisms within a single model, and offers strong evidence for both statistical and theoretical testing. Mediation effects were tested based on bias-corrected bootstrap with 5,000 bootstrap samples as recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008). This method makes no assumptions about the normal sampling distribution of indirect effects, and provides more accurate and reliable confidence intervals, especially in studies with complex models and moderate sample sizes.

Results

Preliminary analyses

All focal constructs in this study were evaluated at the team level. To ensure that we have an adequate indicator-to-sample size ratio, we developed three parcels for inclusive leadership and four parcels for team career calling, following the procedure suggested by Little et al. (2002). As reported in Table 1, the four-factor measurement model demonstrated superior fit compared to three alternative models (χ2df = 1.777; CFI = 0.939; TLI = 0.928; RMSEA = 0.044; SRMR = 0.040), indicating satisfactory discriminant validity among the four constructs.

Table 1 Results of CFA.
Full size table

Results from Harman’s single-factor test indicated that the largest unrotated factor accounted for 16.511% of the total variance, well below the 40% threshold, suggesting limited concern for CMB. In addition, common method variance was further assessed using an ULMC. The five-factor model, which included a latent method factor (χ2/df = 1.619; CFI = 0.958; TLI = 0.943; RMSEA = 0.039; SRMR = 0.035), did not show meaningful improvement in fit compared with the four-factor model (|ΔCFI | = 0.019 < 0.05; |ΔTLI | = 0.015 < 0.05; |ΔRMSEA | = 0.005 < 0.015; |ΔSRMR | = 0.005 < 0.030) (Bagozzi and Yi 1990; Chen 2007). Together, these diagnostics indicate that CMB is unlikely to have a serious threat in this study.

As shown in Table 2, correlational analyses indicated that inclusive leadership was positively linked to team innovation performance, team learning from failures, and team career calling. Additionally, team learning from failures was positively linked with both team innovation performance and team career calling. These bivariate relationships provide preliminary backing for the suggested hypotheses.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis.
Full size table

Hypothesis testing

Figure 2 reports the SEM findings. The path from inclusive leadership to team innovation performance was positive and statistically substantial (β = 0.440, SE = 0.078, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1 and showing that the inclusive leadership’ higher levels are linked with greater team innovation performance. Inclusive leadership also showed a substantial positive relation with team learning from failures (β = 0.288, SE = 0.049, p < 0.001). In turn, team learning from failures was positively linked to team innovation performance (β = 0.301, SE = 0.065, p < 0.001), consistent with Hypothesis 2. These findings collectively suggest that inclusive leadership promotes team learning from failures, which subsequently enhances innovation performance. Additionally, the interaction between inclusive leadership and team career calling was positively associated with team learning from failures (β = 0.349, SE = 0.125, p < 0.01), confirming Hypothesis 3. This suggests that team career calling’s higher levels strengthen the positive influence of inclusive leadership on team learning from failures.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

Results of SEM.

Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between team learning from failures and inclusive leadership at high (M + SD) and low (M − SD) levels of team career calling. At lower levels of team career calling, the relationship was substantially positive (β = 0.171, SE = 0.066, p < 0.01). At higher levels of team career calling, the relation remained significant and was notably stronger (β = 0.405, SE = 0.064, p < 0.001). These results indicate that team career calling amplifies the positive effect of inclusive leadership on team learning from failures, providing support for Hypothesis 3.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.
Full size image

The moderating effect of team career calling.

Table 3 presents the bootstrap estimates. The indirect influence of inclusive leadership on team innovation performance via team learning from failures was statistically significant (95% CI [0.031, 0.143]), providing support for Hypothesis 2. When team career calling was high, the indirect effect remained significant (95% CI [0.055, 0.189]); in contrast, at low levels of team career calling, the indirect effect was not significant (95% CI [ − 0.004, 0.107]). The variance between these conditional indirect effects was substantial (95% CI [0.020, 0.121]), supporting Hypothesis 4. Overall, these results suggest that team career calling strengthens the indirect effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation performance by increasing its effect on team learning from failures.

Table 3 Result of Bootstrapping simulation.
Full size table

Discussion

Based on TRT, this study offers some insights into the contingent mechanisms by which inclusive leadership improves team innovation performance. Our results suggest that team learning from failures is an important mediating mechanism between inclusive leadership and team innovation performance. Furthermore, the strength of this relationship is dependent on team career calling. Specifically, when team career calling is high, inclusive leadership has a more beneficial effect on team learning from failures, which leads to higher levels of team innovation performance.

Theoretical contributions

Our results contribute in a number of ways to the literature on inclusive leadership and team innovation. First, this study underscores the importance of inclusive leadership, which is a bottom-up approach, in improving the performance of teams with regard to innovation. Team innovation is not the sum of the parts of individual team members, but is an outcome of synergy that is created by team members working together (van Knippenberg 2017). Prior research has shown that top-down leadership styles, such as transformational (Eisenbeiss et al. 2008), temporal (Lyu et al. 2022) or paradoxical leadership (Zhang et al. 2022) can foster innovation by meeting the needs of employees for belongingness or uniqueness. However, with new generation employees forming the main body of the workforce, they focus more on satisfying personal and intrinsic needs (Zhang et al. 2024). Unlike top-down approaches, inclusive leaders accept employees as they are (Shore et al. 2011) and allow them to contribute in ways that align with their individual strengths (Liu et al. 2024; Randel et al. 2018). This leadership style meets the intrinsic needs of new generation employees (Zafar et al. 2023) and promotes collaborative innovation (Duc and Tho 2023). Our results suggest that inclusive leadership improves team innovation performance not through visionary inspiration or performance pressure but by strengthening the sense of belonging of employees and supporting them to achieve their potential. This finding is important because it redirects leadership research away from assertive, often authoritarian, leadership styles toward more inclusive and empowering styles.

Second, based on TRT, we explored the mechanism by which inclusive leadership promotes team learning from failures, which in turn promotes innovation performance. Existing research has mainly focused on the impact of inclusive leadership on individual-level innovation outcomes, such as psychological safety, self-efficacy and affective commitment (Carmeli et al. 2010; Fang et al. 2019; Javed, Abdullah, et al. 2019; Javed, Naqvi, et al. 2019; Sürücü et al. 2023; Zhong et al. 2022). Although some recent studies have taken into account team-level innovation, few have examined whether inclusive leadership has benefits on team innovation in the context of project failure. Drawing on TRT, we proposed and confirmed that inclusive leadership changes team members’ perceptions and attitudes towards failure (Fang et al. 2025; Hirak et al. 2012), fostering open communication and collaboration (Atuahene et al. 2024; Gong et al. 2025; Zhong et al. 2022), thus enabling team learning from failures (Hirak et al. 2012; Meeuwissen et al. 2021). When teams embrace collective learning after failure, collaboration is enhanced, creativity is stimulated (Gino et al. 2010; Rhaiem and Amara 2021; Tao et al. 2025), and innovative behaviors are improved (Cui et al. 2023; Lyu et al. 2022), ultimately improving the team innovation performance (Kucharska and Erickson 2023; Shaik et al. 2023). Collectively, these findings add to a better comprehension of the link between leadership behaviors and team processes and outcomes, as well as provide empirical support for TRT.

Finally, our study suggests that leadership effectiveness depends on the context (Leblanc et al. 2022). Team leadership has an impact on outcomes by influencing team processes (Zaccaro et al. 2001) and this impact is conditioned by the characteristics of the team (Chen et al. 2009; DeShon et al. 2004; Liu et al. 2024). To broaden this view, we added team career calling as a moderator to investigate the differences in the relation between inclusive leadership and team learning from failures and innovation performance at different levels of team career calling. The results have shown that teams that have high career calling are more open to inclusive leadership. In these teams, inclusive leadership and strong career calling both contribute toward learning from failure, which in turn contributes toward improved innovation performance. These findings add to the knowledge about the boundary conditions of when inclusive leadership is most effective and the important role that team characteristics play in determining leadership impact.

Practical Implications

First, our results show a positive relationship between team innovation performance and inclusive leadership. This implies that managerial practices should focus on inclusiveness especially in a context that is marked by high collectivism and diversity where coordination and respect for differences are crucial (Triandis 2018). In practice, managers should be sensitive to the desires of their team members, recognize the value of their contribution, be open to new ideas, be pro-active in their team exchanges and offer guidance when teams are facing emerging challenges. At the same time, leaders should signal accessibility and make an environment where employees are psychologically safe to voice their perspectives. Such practices can encourage the sharing of ideas, foster collaboration, and ultimately improve the team’s performance in innovation.

Second, managers should have positive attitudes toward failure and emphasize the importance of learning from failure. Our results suggest that team learning from failures is an important mechanism by which inclusive leadership promotes innovation performance. Leaders should encourage team members to see failures as opportunities for growth, not as threats. For example, organizations can conduct regular meetings to share experiences or create cross-team reflection sessions to encourage knowledge sharing. These initiatives not only make failure a normal part of learning but also help improve problem-solving abilities (Shepherd et al. 2011) and stimulate creativity (Fang et al. 2025).

Third, managers should be aware of the impact of the career calling of employees. Our findings suggest that the positive effect of inclusive leadership on team innovation performance is greater in teams with higher levels of collective career calling. This suggests that managers should take active steps to foster the career calling of employees, for example, by developing individualized career development plans that match employee career goals with organizational goals. While the benefits of career calling often emerge gradually, beginning with attitudinal shifts (Hall and Chandler 2005), progressing to behavioral engagement (Xu et al. 2023), and ultimately influencing performance outcomes (Duffy and Dik 2013), organizations should remain patient and maintain a consistent focus on fostering its long-term value.

Research limitations and future research

Several limitations of the present study should be taken into consideration. First, even though data were gathered in three waves, the design is not a truly longitudinal investigation. While our model is conceptually grounded in the IPO framework, relating team-level leadership to innovation performance through learning processes, the current evidence allows for only limited leverage in inferring causal relationships among the focal constructs. Future research using longitudinal or quasi-experimental designs would be more capable of establishing causal ordering and the changing dynamics of leadership and team innovation over time.

Second, the use of team members as the sole source of data for the focal constructs raises the possibility of method-related variance. To address this concern, we adopted a time-lagged survey design and based on diagnostics from Harman’s single factor test and the ULMC approach, CMB was not likely to be a significant threat. Nevertheless, future research could increase the rigor of the measurement by measuring team learning from failures using observational techniques, measuring team innovation using archival records or supervisor evaluations, or using multiple sources of data.

Third, although team career calling emerged as an important boundary condition in the relationship between inclusive leadership and team outcomes, other contingencies may also influence the relationship. For example, high growth need strength might enhance the impact of inclusive leadership on learning from failures and team-level orientations, such as performance orientation or collective efficacy, might further moderate these dynamics. Investigating such factors would refine our understanding of the boundary conditions of inclusive leadership and respond to calls for more nuanced research on when and why inclusive leadership is most effective.