Leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity in multinational teams: The role of organizational diversity climate

Hundschell, Andreas; Backmann, Julia; Tian, Amy Wei; Hoegl, Martin Article — Published Version Leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity in multinational teams: The role of organizational diversity climate Journal of Organizational Behavior Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Hundschell, Andreas; Backmann, Julia; Tian, Amy Wei; Hoegl, Martin (2024) : Leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity in multinational teams: The role of organizational diversity climate, Journal of Organizational Behavior, ISSN 1099-1379, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 46, Iss. 3, pp. 369-384, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2829 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/319270 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ RESEARCH ARTICLE Leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity in multinational teams: The role of organizational diversity climate Andreas Hundschell 1 | Julia Backmann 2 | Amy Wei Tian 3 | Martin Hoegl 1 1 Institute for Leadership and Organization, LMU Munich School of Management, LudwigMaximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany 2 School of Business & Economics, University of Münster, Muenster, Germany 3 School of Management and Marketing, Faculty of Business and Law, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia Correspondence Julia Backmann, School of Business & Economics, University of Münster, Schlossplatz 3, 48149, Muenster, Germany. Email: [email protected] Funding information There are no funders to report for this submission. Summary Multinational teams face numerous challenges arising from pressures in the global business environment and complexities posed by national diversity within teams. Team resilience capacity has been identified as an important capability for successful performance in challenging work environments, yet little is known about which factors contribute to it in a multinational context. Given that teams are inherently situated within a specific context and shaped by team leaders and the organizational environment, enhancing our understanding of contexts involving multinational teams is crucial for fostering team resilience and performance. Drawing on the conservation of resources theory, we investigate the influence of leader inclusiveness on the resilience capacity of multinational teams and explore how the organizational diversity climate shapes this relationship. Findings from our quantitative, multi-informant study based on data collected from 111 multinational teams reveal that leader inclusiveness enhances team resilience capacity and that such an effect is stronger when the organizational diversity climate is high. We also highlight that leader inclusiveness improves team performance indirectly via its effect on team resilience capacity, contingent on the organizational diversity climate. KEYWORDS conservation of resources theory, leader inclusiveness, multinational team, organizational diversity climate, team resilience capacity 1|INTRODUCTION As a collective phenomenon, research on team-level resilience has gained momentum in recent years (Chapman et al., 2020; Gucciardi et al., 2018; Hartwig et al., 2020; King et al., 2024; Raetze et al., 2022). We conceptualize team resilience capacity as an emergent state that can be influenced and developed (Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003), evolving from the team's context (Hartwig et al., 2020; Stoverink et al., 2020). We apply the capacity view to team resilience, defining it as “a team's capacity to cope, recover and adjust positively to difficulties”(Carmeli et al., 2013, p. 149). This view acknowledges that teams can possess team resilience capacity even in the absence of current adversity (Britt et al., 2016; Chen & Zhang, 2021; Hartmann et al., 2021). To date, research on team resilience (for reviews on resilience, see Hartmann et al., 2020; Kossek & Perrigino, 2016; Prior presentation:A previous version of the paper was presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management in Boston in 2019. Received: 28 April 2022 Revised: 18 June 2024 Accepted: 13 July 2024 DOI: 10.1002/job.2829 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Organizational Behavior published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. J Organ Behav. 2025;46:369–384. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 369 Raetze et al., 2022) has begun to identify its antecedents (Hartmann et al., 2021; Meneghel, Martínez, & Salanova, 2016; Meneghel, Salanova, & Martínez, 2016), team processes (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2013; Vera et al., 2017; West et al., 2009), and structural factors (e.g., Stuart & Moore, 2017). Despite growing interest in team resilience capacity and its vital role in team success, few scholars have investigated its development empirically. Even scarcer are studies on the development and outcomes of team resilience capacity in multinational teams consisting of members from two or more national cultural backgrounds with distinct norms, values, beliefs, and behaviors (Stahl et al., 2010). A better understanding of team resilience capacity in multinational teams offers great value. Multinational teams often operate in demanding and challenging environments, both internally and externally. Optimization of multinational team performance has long been a critical topic in research on both teams and international business (Minbaeva et al., 2021; Stahl & Maznevski, 2021). Cultural diversity within these teams is viewed as a double-edged sword (Minbaeva et al., 2021). While diversity can positively impact information processing and creativity, it can also make multinational teams more susceptible to process losses due to increased conflict and reduced cohesion or social integration (Lu et al., 2022; Stahl & Maznevski, 2021), which can negatively impact performance (Leung & Wang, 2015). Cultural diversity naturally can create barriers to effective communication and collaboration, necessitating different needs and processes for building team resilience. Therefore, understanding how team resilience capacity is built in the multinational team context is critical to help teams overcome challenges and achieve success. Our study aims to provide a more contextualized understanding of team resilience capacity building and its outcomes in multinational teams. Our theoretical framework is developed based on the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989)—specifically, the principles of resource caravans and resource caravan passageways (Hobfoll, 2011a), and resource alignment (Fisher et al., 2023). Resource caravans are interconnected resources that typically co-exist and are developed together, and resource caravan passageways are “the environmental conditions that support, foster, enrich, and protect”resource growth or that “detract, undermine, obstruct, or impoverish”available resources (Hobfoll, 2011a, pp. 118–119). Applying COR theory to the context of resilience, we echo the importance of resource alignment (Fisher et al., 2023), defined as the fit of resources to situational demands (Chen et al., 2015). Focusing on multinational teams, we explore two relevant resources that leverage its full potential when they are aligned with each other—leader inclusiveness and organizational diversity climate—that are closely interconnected, thereby forming a resource caravan. Together, these resources are crucial for developing team resilience capacity in multinational teams (Hajro et al., 2017; Nishii & Mayer, 2009). Leader inclusiveness comprises behaviors that promote the inclusion and appreciation of all team members' contributions, thereby harnessing the benefits of diversity (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Organizational diversity climate refers to “employees' shared perceptions that an employer utilizes fair personnel practices and socially integrates underrepresented employees into the work environment”(McKay et al., 2008, p. 350). We argue that organizational diversity climate can be viewed as a resource caravan passageway by enhancing the impact of leader inclusiveness and facilitating the utilization of resources to build team resilience capacity and improve team performance. The study's proposed conceptual model is depicted in Figure 1. Our study makes two primary contributions. First, we extend the understanding of team resilience capacity to the context of multinational teams (Hartwig et al., 2020; Raetze et al., 2022; Stoverink et al., 2020). Investigating team resilience capacity as a mechanism linking leader inclusiveness and team performance (Brykman & King, 2021; Dimas et al., 2018) contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the development and impact of team resilience across various types of teams and contexts (Gucciardi et al., 2018). As noted, team resilience is particularly important for multinational teams, which often face greater internal challenges due to diversity in culture, beliefs, values, and communication (Lu et al., 2022). Moreover, our study offers empirical evidence on contextual variables such as team leadership and organizational climate as team-level resources that foster resilience capacity (Hartwig et al., 2020; Stoverink et al., 2020). Addressing Hartwig et al.’s( 2020) observation that contextual factors have not yet formed a major part of the discourse in team resilience research, our focus on these two contextual factors is particularly pertinent. Despite teams being deeply “embedded within specific work environments and influenced by supervisory and organizational practices, it is surprising that contextual factors have not yet formed a major part of the discourse in team resilience research”(Hartwig et al., 2020, p. 193). Recognizing the inherent divergent cultural diversity in multinational teams, we focus on contextual factors that reflect an intentional effort to foster the inclusion of all team members. Specially, we emphasize leader inclusiveness as a vital personal social resource and organizational diversity climate as a crucial contextual resource for multinational teams and underscore the importance of aligning these resources. This directly addresses Raetze et al.’s( 2022) call for resilience research to focus on moderators that pinpoint the conditions in which specific antecedents, such as leader inclusiveness, lead to desired outcomes, such as improved team performance. Second, our study contributes to COR theory by linking the concepts of resource caravans and resource caravan passageways (Hobfoll, 2011a) to team resilience capacity (Hobfoll, 2011b). Previous research has positioned leadership as a valuable social personal resource in enhancing resilience (Brykman & King, 2021; Cooke et al., 2019; Sommer et al., 2016; Sürücü et al., 2023). Additionally, research supported a positive impact of leader inclusiveness on multinational team performance (Lisak et al., 2016). However, it remains unclear if team resilience capacity acts as a mechanism in the leader inclusiveness—team performance relationship and how leadership's impact on team resilience capacity amplifies when considering organizational environmental conditions. In this study, we conceptualize organizational diversity climate as an environmental condition moderator due to its function as a resource caravan passageway, which shapes dynamic resource trajectories (i.e., acquiring, enriching, and protecting resources). We propose that leader inclusiveness and 370 HUNDSCHELL ET AL. organizational diversity climate can interact to create a resource caravan that fosters team resilience capacity, thereby enhancing team performance. This highlights the significance of having accessible, interconnected personal and organizational resources. We contend that organizational diversity climate as a resource caravan passageway may strengthen the impact of leader inclusiveness to foster team resilience capacity. Acknowledging the dynamic and transient nature of resources and their interactions (Halbesleben et al., 2014), we support Halbesleben et al.’s( 2014, p. 1354) assertion that examining the “availability of a resource offers incomplete information.”This is because resource caravan passageways can either facilitate or impede the utilization of resources, thereby influencing the creation of resource caravans. Overall, our work aims to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of team resilience capacity in the context of multinational teams by drawing on COR theory, setting the stage for further multi-level research of team resilience capacity in challenging organizational contexts. 2|THEORY AND HYPOTHESES 2.1 |COR theory The primary tenet of COR is that entities are motivated to protect their current resources and acquire new resources (Halbesleben et al., 2014; Hobfoll, 1989). Resources are loosely defined as “objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are valued in their own right, or that are valued because they act as conduits to the achievement or protection of valued resources”(Hobfoll, 2001, p. 339). The value of resources varies among entities and is tied to personal experiences and situations. COR theory has frequently been employed as a theoretical framework to understand the antecedents and consequences of team resilience (Brykman & King, 2021; Chen et al., 2015; Fisher et al., 2023; Hartmann et al., 2020; Hartwig et al., 2020; Stoverink et al., 2020). Brykman and King (2021) emphasized that COR is “especially applicable to understanding team resilience capacity because this conceptualization frames resilience as a team property that develops from other team experiences (inputs) to subsequently influence team behaviors (outputs)”(p. 741). In this study, we build upon two main principles of COR theory. First, our research focuses on the interplay between resources (i.e., resource caravans) and environmental contexts that either enhance or hinder resource utilization (i.e., resource caravan passageways) (Hobfoll et al., 2018). According to COR theory, resources do not exist in isolation; they emerge from a common environment and typically are interconnected, forming a resource caravan. An organization's environmental conditions constitute the resource caravan passageway, which plays a crucial role in either fostering or undermining resource utilization and creation. Second, we emphasize the principles of resource alignment. A key corollary to resource investment is that entities (such as individuals or teams) with greater resources are less vulnerable to resource loss and more capable of resource gain (Halbesleben et al., 2014). This corollary is essential in understanding resilience. Hobfoll et al. (2018) highlighted that resources enhance resilience, stating, “resource possession and lack thereof are integral to vulnerability and resilience”(p. 107). However, simply having many resources available does not necessarily enhance resilience. Rather, the primary building blocks of resilience include not only the quantity of available resources, but also the alignment of these resources (Chen et al., 2015; Fisher et al., 2023). By focusing on these COR principles, we create a resource model that links contextually relevant team resources—leader inclusiveness and organizational diversity climate—to the development of team resilience capacity, which in turn translates into team performance. In the multinational team context, we consider leader inclusiveness and organizational diversity climate to be interconnected resources that work intentionally and synergistically to shape team resilience capacity, and consequently, team performance. Specifically, we posit that leader inclusiveness serves as a crucial social support resource that enhances team resilience capacity in the challenging environments encountered by multinational teams (Randel, 2023; Randel et al., 2016,2018; Van Knippenberg & van Ginkel, 2022). We position organizational diversity climate (i.e., an organization's deliberate efforts to foster the inclusion of all organizational members; McKay et al., 2008) as an effective resource caravan passageway that amplifies the positive effect of leader inclusiveness on team resilience capacity. Collectively, these beneficial contextual resources create a resource-enriching organizational ecology that supports the growth of team resilience capacity and improves team performance. 2.2 |Leader inclusiveness as a social support resource enhancing team resilience capacity Leader inclusiveness encompasses behaviors that value the unique contributions of all team members and embrace diverse perspectives FIGURE 1 Conceptual model of the study. HUNDSCHELL ET AL.371 (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). We focus on leader inclusiveness within the context of multinational teams for two key reasons. First, leader inclusiveness has been established as essential for managing diverse teams (Beijer et al., 2024; Nishii & Mayer, 2009). As Nishii and Leroy (2022) and Mitchell et al. (2015) argued, when studying diverse teams and organizations, researchers must consider situationally fitted leadership rather than leadership behaviors that are generically positive. For example, Mitchell et al. (2015) highlighted that leader inclusiveness differs from other types of positive leadership such as participative and transformational leadership by promoting openness and accessibility to encourage diversity of opinions within the context of collective team goals. Second, leader inclusiveness enhances followers' sense of belonging, which is particularly essential in multinational teams due to their inherent diversity (Homan et al., 2020; Randel, 2023). Leader inclusiveness positively impacts team members' experiences of belongingness and appreciation (Korkmaz et al., 2022; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006), fostering a learning environment for diverse employees and groups (Kuknor & Bhattacharya, 2021). Leadership has been theorized as a core resource that enhances resilience at both the individual and team levels (Raetze et al., 2022; Hartwig et al., 2020; Sommer et al., 2016). Initial research has explored how leader inclusiveness may impact individual resilience (Gong et al., 2023; Sürücü et al., 2023). Notwithstanding such prior work at the individual level, we still lack empirical research explicitly examining the impact of leader inclusiveness on team resilience. This lack of research is surprising, given the potential of leader inclusiveness increase team resilience by promoting a sense of inclusion and fairness. Guided by COR theory and the importance of resource alignment, we posit that leader inclusiveness serves as a valuable contextual social support resource that enriches multinational team’ relational and informational resources, and enhances team resilience capacity (Korkmaz et al., 2022; Randel et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2011; Shore & Chung, 2022,2023). First, from a relational perspective, leader inclusiveness enhances team resilience by building strong interpersonal relationships within teams (e.g., Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Mitchell et al., 2015). Inclusive leaders play a crucial role in fostering a sense of social relational inclusion, which is defined as treating individuals as team “insiders”while encouraging them to retain their uniqueness within the workgroup (Shore et al., 2011). By focusing on promoting a sense of inclusion and appreciation for uniqueness, inclusive leaders create environments in which team members feel valued for their unique contributions without being pressured to conform to majority norms. As noted by Hobfoll et al. (2018), the value of resources varies among individuals and is tied to their personal experiences and situations. Thus, we argue that being appreciated for their unique perspectives, regardless of their diverse backgrounds, is a highly valuable resource for multinational team members. It fosters collective growth without disadvantaging individuals from marginalized groups, who are often excluded from information sharing and decision-making processes (Beijer et al., 2024; Lisak et al., 2016). Second, from an informational perspective, when team members perceive their leaders as fostering inclusion, they communicate in ways that enable them to understand and integrate their diverse knowledge and perspectives, thereby harnessing diversity to build resilience. We argue that leader inclusiveness enhances team resilience capacity by creating opportunities for interaction, information sharing, and participative decision-making. This inclusive approach fosters greater accessibility to shared resources and helps establish a robust foundation for multinational teams to adapt and thrive despite challenges. When individuals trust each other and identify as a cohesive group, they are less likely to encounter stress and challenges, significantly enhancing their resilience capabilities (Mitchell et al., 2015; Stephens et al., 2013). Thus, from a resource provision and alignment perspective (Fisher et al., 2023), leader inclusiveness provides the necessary support for multinational team members to protect their current resources and acquire new ones. Their enhanced informational and relational resources serve as the building blocks of resilience capacity, enabling their teams to effectively navigate and overcome adversity. Therefore, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 1. Leader inclusiveness is positively related to team resilience capacity in multinational teams. 2.3 |Team resilience capacity and team performance in multinational teams Prior research has highlighted that team resilience fosters processes such as team cohesion and cooperation (West et al., 2009). In the same vein, we suggest that multinational teams with high team resilience capacity are more likely to perform well in environments with complex challenges because they are less vulnerable to the potentially damaging effects of such challenges to their team processes (West et al., 2009). Teams with higher team resilience capacity may perform better because their team members are encouraged to contribute to team performance to their full potential (Seers, 1989). For the purpose of this study, team performance is operationalized using the performance indicator team efficiency, which refers to the extent to which teams are able to perform within designated schedules and budgets (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Team resilience capacity is characterized by the capacity to recover from setbacks, adapt to changing circumstances, and maintain functionality despite challenges, which supports the notion of efficiency. Resilient teams, by virtue of their ability to bounce back, are likely to experience fewer disruptions and faster recovery times. This leads to a more consistent and reliable flow of work processes, thus enhancing efficiency. The proposed positive effect of team resilience capacity on team performance aligns with findings by Meneghel, Martínez, and Salanova (2016); Meneghel, Salanova, and Martínez (2016) who demonstrated that team resilience positively influences both in-role and extra-role team performance, as rated by the supervisor (Meneghel, Salanova, & Martínez, 2016) and team members (Meneghel, Martínez, & Salanova, 2016). These findings suggest that resilient teams are better able to identify flexible solutions in challenging situations, thereby enhancing overall performance. 372 HUNDSCHELL ET AL. High team resilience fosters a more cohesive and cooperative environment, leading to a collective mindset regarding team tasks (Weick & Roberts, 1993). Additionally, team resilience capacity enables teams to rapidly respond to, recover from, and adjust to challenges such as team conflicts. This team resilience capability reduces the time spent on relationship maintenance and conflict resolution, thereby positively impacting team efficiency (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2009). Consequently, high resilience capacity enables multinational teams to focus more on their tasks and utilize their resources for task completion. We therefore posit: Hypothesis 2. Team resilience capacity is positively related to the performance of multinational teams. 2.4 |Indirect effect of leader inclusiveness on team performance via team resilience capacity As discussed previously, according to the logic of COR theory, we posit that leader inclusiveness is an important social resource that can promote team resilience capacity by building a resource-enriching organizational environment where members are encouraged to access shared and cumulative informational and relational resources. Collectively, these resources provide fertile ground for developing team resilience capacity, likely leading to subsequent improvement in team performance (Hartwig et al., 2020). Leaders can establish and promote conditions for better team performance indirectly by shaping key mechanisms. For example, Mitchell et al. (2015) proposed and found support that leader inclusiveness enhances team identity, and in turn, team performance. Likewise, Chen et al. (2023) found that inclusive leadership affects team psychological safety and information elaboration, which in turn affect collective voice behaviors. Responding to calls for more studies examining specific leadership behaviors and team resilience (Hartwig et al., 2020), and to provide a better understanding of the role of team resilience capacity as a mechanism (Bowers et al., 2017; Hartwig et al., 2020; Stoverink et al., 2020), we position leader inclusiveness as a factor that may impact team resilience capacity, and in turn, influence team performance: Hypothesis 3. Leader inclusiveness has an indirect effect on team performance via team resilience capacity in multinational teams. 2.5 |Moderating effect of organizational diversity climate Considerable research demonstrates that certain situational variables can strengthen the relationship between leadership and team outcomes (e.g., Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Mo et al., 2019). As noted earlier, drawing on the principles of resource caravans and resource caravan passageways (Hobfoll, 2011a) as well as resource alignment (Fisher et al., 2023), we focus on organizational diversity climate as an important contextual resource in the leader inclusiveness-team resilience capacity relationship. We noted at the outset that “diversity climate”and “inclusive climate”have been used interchangeably in the literature, despite the conceptual differences between the two (Park et al., 2023; Shore et al., 2011). “Diversity climate”typically refers to employees' perceptions of fairness and organizational support for employees with diverse backgrounds (McKay et al., 2008), while “inclusive climate”is a broader term referring to the engagement of whole selves and learning from divergent perspectives (Nishii, 2013; Park et al., 2023; Shore et al., 2011). In this study, we focus on organizational diversity climate because of the relatively narrower focus on promoting fairness for employees. Hobfoll (2011a) argued that resilience capacity emerges from a resource-rich environment in which interconnected resources form resource caravans and that organizations should strive to create environmental conditions—resource caravan passageways—to facilitate resource development, protection, and accumulation. In this study, we posit that organizational diversity climate can be viewed as a resource caravan passageway by creating an environment that enhances the impact of leader inclusiveness, and facilities the utilization of these resources in building team resilience capacity and improving team performance. Together, leader inclusiveness and organizational diversity climate contribute to organizational ecologies that create and sustain resource caravans. Our focus on organizational diversity climate also reflects the principle of resource alignment (Chen et al., 2015; Fisher et al., 2023), which states that the primary building blocks of resilience include both the quantity of available resources and the alignment of these resources. That is, the worth of resources differs for each individual and is linked to their unique personal experiences and situational needs (Hobfoll et al., 2018). We consider the organizational diversity climate to be a vital contextual condition that multinational team members are likely to value. As discussed earlier, leader inclusiveness is a contextually suited social support resource that enriches individuals' relational and informational resources, and positively influences resilience capacity. We focus on organizational diversity climate as an additional resource, as it represents an organization's intentional efforts to include employees with diverse backgrounds. Functioning as an effective resource caravan passageway, organizational diversity climate, and leader inclusiveness are well aligned to convey a unified message that conveys an appreciation of diversity. Organizational diversity climate provides the necessary environmental condition that strengthens the effect of leader inclusiveness on team resilience capacity. We posit that, in contexts involving multinational teams, perceptions of a strong organizational diversity climate strengthen the positive relationship between leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity. Members of multinational teams are likely to rely on leader inclusiveness to navigate the unique challenges stemming from diverse backgrounds and perspectives, and to leverage an organizational diversity climate that can facilitate resource acquisition and protection (Brykman & King, 2021). A strong organizational diversity climate also indicates to multinational teams that fair treatment and HUNDSCHELL ET AL.373 inclusion are organizational priorities, providing the support necessary for diverse teams to confront challenges. An organization with a supportive organizational diversity climate is likely to have more contextual resources that are highly aligned, such as social support evolving from high leader inclusiveness, which can be leveraged to strengthen teams' resources rather than protect individuals' resources (Hobfoll, 2011a). Thus, we suggest that leader inclusiveness should be more strongly associated with team resilience capacity when team members are immersed in a strong organizational diversity climate. In contrast, a weak organizational diversity climate may be perceived as a lack of fair treatment across team members, particularly marginalized groups. When the organizational diversity climate is weak, individuals might perceive that the organization does not support employees with diverse backgrounds and may view the contextual conditions as misaligned with their leaders' focus. Such an organizational climate neither facilitates the acquisition of new resources nor protects existing resources, but rather depletes potential resources. We hypothesize that the relationship between leader inclusiveness and multinational teams' resilience capacity is weaker in firms with weak organizational diversity climates. Hence, we posit the following: Hypothesis 4. Organizational diversity climate moderates the relationship between leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity in multinational teams such that the relationship is amplified in organizations with stronger organizational diversity climates. 2.6 |Moderated indirect effect Multinational teams are likely to develop their team resilience capacity, and in turn improve their performance, when they perceive leader inclusiveness as an essential resource which facilitates their capability to be resilient. This relationship is amplified when highly aligned resources exist at the organizational level, manifesting as a strong organizational diversity climate. In such circumstances, teams are likely to perform well, which supports their team resilience capacity. In other words, the alignment between leader inclusiveness and a strong organizational diversity climate sends a unified message of inclusive treatment to teams, which strengthens the effect of leader inclusiveness on team resilience capacity. Hence, we expect that in organizations with strong organizational diversity climates, teams are likely to better capitalize on the benefits of leader inclusiveness and further develop their team resilience capacity. This in turn strengthens the role of team resilience capacity in explaining the link between leader inclusiveness and team performance. We therefore hypothesize: Hypothesis 5. Organizational diversity climate moderates the indirect effect of leader inclusiveness on team performance through team resilience capacity, such that the indirect relationship is stronger in firms with stronger organizational diversity climates. 3|METHODS 3.1 |Sample and procedure We tested our hypotheses using data collected from 111 multinational teams in 29 organizations operating predominantly in manufacturing (mainly engineering and consumer goods) in Western Europe (75.68%) and Australia (24.32%). A key contact from each organization, usually the team leader or external manager (i.e., a team leader's direct superior), was asked to identify suitable multinational teams or projects for the study. To be eligible for inclusion in our study, the teams had to work together on a project or as a department or functional group, consist of a team leader and at least two additional team members, and comprise team members from at least two different nationalities/cultures. If teamwork was ongoing, we required the project to be far enough along for the team's performance to be rated (e.g., based on completed milestones); if teamwork was not ongoing, we required the project to have concluded very recently. The majority of teams (> 96%) were working on ongoing projects at the time of data collection. Key contacts completed a short template for each multinational team to clarify whether it met these eligibility criteria. The organizations also provided information about the teams, such as their tasks, sizes, and nationalities of team members. After their organizations informed them about the study, participants received a link to an online questionnaire. We collected data from 61 external managers, 111 team leaders, and 538 team members. For all teams in the study, at least two and as many as 15 team members completed the team member survey (4.84 members, on average) in which they assessed the leader's inclusiveness and the team's resilience capacity. External managers assessed team performance in 86% of cases, though some teams did not have an external manager. For those teams without external managers, the team leader assessed team performance. Furthermore, some external managers were responsible for more than one team and, therefore, provided performance ratings for multiple teams. Overall, 96 teams were evaluated by external managers and 15 teams were evaluated by their team leaders. The external managers and team leaders were invited to participate in the study shortly after the team members (e.g., 1 to 2 weeks) to prevent performance ratings from being provided before data were collected on leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity. With regard to team tasks, 77.68% of all teams worked on nonroutine tasks that required creative solutions, such as product development. Almost two-thirds of the participants were male (65.73%). The most frequently represented nationalities in terms of national citizenship were German (27.79%), Australian (15.37%), and Chinese (4.23%). Overall, our sample encompassed team members from 34 different nationalities; participating multinational teams comprised approximately five different nationalities, on average. Strong cultural differences between these nationalities and the accompanying challenges of cross-cultural collaboration in the multinational team context contributed to a rich dataset that enabled us to explore the importance of team resilience capacity. 374 HUNDSCHELL ET AL. 3.2 |Measures We used well-established scales to assess our variables. Unless stated otherwise, participants responded to items using five-point Likert scales (1 =strongly disagree to 5 =strongly agree). Ratings for organizational diversity climate were collected from team members and aggregated across teams to yield an organization-level measure. Leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity were assessed by team members. Team performance and all control variables were collected from external managers or team leaders or coded by the research team. We employed a referent-shift consensus model; that is, the items reflected a team member's perception of higher-level structures (e.g., Wallace et al., 2016), such as the team (in the case of team resilience capacity and leader inclusiveness) and the organization (in the case of organizational diversity climate). As we proposed a multilevel framework (i.e., team, organization), we verified the viability of aggregating these constructs and considered three proposed determinants: the natural occurrence of the higher-level unit (i.e., team or organization), sufficient within-unit homogeneity, and sufficient between-unit heterogeneity (e.g., Bliese, 2000; Woehr et al., 2015). To assess within-unit homogeneity, we calculated withingroup interrater reliability (r WG[J] ) using the multiple-item estimator. In addition, we assessed two intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC): ICC1 indicates the variance attributed to membership in the unit of analysis (i.e., the team), and ICC2 indicates the reliability of mean scores within the unit of analysis (Biemann et al., 2012). All inter-rater agreement statistics are presented with their respective construct below. The withingroup interrater reliability (r WG[J] ) for all constructs indicates satisfactory agreement and exceed the often-cited cut-off value of 0.70 (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). The ICC1 coefficients indicate a medium effect for leader inclusiveness and organizational diversity climate and a large effect for team resilience capacity (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). The ICC2 coefficient for organizational diversity climate exceeds the suggested cutoff value of 0.70 (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). However, the values for leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity are below this threshold. Notably, these less reliable means may arise from relatively small unit sizes (i.e., average of five team members) (Bliese, 1998). Based on the satisfactory values for r WG(J) statistics and ICC1 coefficients, we aggregated the constructs as proposed in several studies with similar ICC2 coefficients (e.g., Choi, 2009; Dong et al., 2020; Hofmann & Jones, 2005; Shen et al., 2019). ICC1 and ICC2 show significant between-unit variance. Hence, these results support the aggregation of leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity at the team level, and of organizational diversity climate at the organization level. 3.2.1 | Organizational diversity climate (organization level) We assessed team members' perceptions of the organization's diversity climate using a four-item scale developed and validated by McKay et al. (2008). Example items include the following: “The organization maintains a diversity friendly work environment;”and “Top leaders demonstrate a visible commitment to diversity.”Cronbach's alpha for the scale is .91. Data were aggregated at the organization level. The inter-rater agreement statistics were r wg(4) =.76, ICC(1) =.13, ICC(2) =.71 (F=3.48, p< .01). 3.2.2 | Leader inclusiveness (team level) We assessed team members' perceptions of leader inclusiveness using a four-item scale developed by Mitchell et al. (2015) which was originally adapted from Nembhard and Edmondson (2006) and Shortell et al. (1991). The items are: “Our team leader asks for input from members of all national backgrounds;”“Our team leader encourages all team members to actively engage;”“Our team leader values the opinions and inputs of all team members equally;”and “Our team leader encourages all members to participate actively.”Cronbach's alpha is .92. Data were aggregated at the team level. The inter-rater agreement statistics were r wg(4) =.85, ICC(1) =.14 ICC(2) =.44 (F=1.80, p<.01). 3.2.3 | Team resilience capacity (team level) We asked team members to assess their team's resilience using a six-item scale from West et al. (2009), which was adapted from the validated psychological capital questionnaire (Luthans et al., 2007). Example items include: “Our team usually manages difficulties one way or another at work;”and “Our team can get through difficult times at work because they have experienced difficulty before.” Cronbach's alpha for the scale is .77. Data were aggregated at the team level. The inter-rater agreement statistics were r wg(6) =.89, ICC(1) =.26 ICC(2) =.64 (F=2.75, p< .01). 3.2.4 | Team performance (team level) We assessed team performance using the five-item scale for team efficiency developed by Hoegl and Gemuenden (2001). Items include “Overall, the project/teamwork is/was done in a cost-efficient way;” “From the company's perspective one could be satisfied with how the team/project progressed;”“Overall, the team/project was/is done in a time-efficient way;”“The team/project was/is within schedule;”and “The team/project was/is within budget.”The past tense was used when the project work was completed recently, while the present tense was used when the teamwork was ongoing. Cronbach's alpha for the scale is .87. 3.2.5 | Control variables Five control variables were included: team size, number of nationalities within the team, type of team tasks, evaluating multiple teams, and team leader as performance evaluator. These variables were obtained from the key contact person in the organization and further crossHUNDSCHELL ET AL.375 checked by either the team leader or external manager or coded by the research team. Following prior research studies on diverse teams (e.g., Harrison et al., 2002; Jackson et al., 2003), we controlled for team size, including team members and the team leader, to partial out the potential confounding effects on the results. This is based on the notion that the number of team members might influence team processes and interactions within the team as these may involve increased complexity due to a higher number of linkages among team members (Steiner, 1966). Prior research suggests that the presence of members with diverse national backgrounds may either positively or negatively influence the team's performance (e.g., Ely & Thomas, 2001; Harrison et al., 2002; Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Thus, we controlled for the number of different nationalities at the team level to avoid confounding effects stemming from teams' diverse national backgrounds. Finally, the nature of team tasks was included as a variable in the model, because findings suggest it influences team performance (e.g., Gilson & Shalley, 2004). Thus, we asked team members to code team tasks as routine or non-routine. As some external managers evaluated the performance of more than one team, we included a control variable labeled multiple evaluator coded as 1 when a person evaluated more than one team and coded as 0 when the person evaluated only one team. We also controlled for whether the team leader or the external manager evaluated a team's performance (labeled as team leader), coded as 1 when the team leader was the respondent and as 0 when the external manager evaluated the performance. 3.3 |Data analysis strategy Our study data exhibited a hierarchical structure in which teams were nested within their respective organizations. Hence, we tested multilevel hypotheses with relationships between team-level variables (Level 1) and organization-level variables (Level 2). In our research model, we proposed a first-stage multilevel moderated indirect effect in which the indirect effect of leader inclusiveness on team performance via team resilience capacity (i.e., a Level 1 indirect effect model) is moderated by the organizational diversity climate (i.e., a Level 2 variable). To test the indirect effect, moderation, and conditional indirect effect hypotheses simultaneously in a single model, we employed Preacher et al.’s( 2010) multilevel approach (i.e., 1-1-1 indirect effect model) and Bauer et al.’s( 2006) moderated mediation procedures using multilevel modeling in Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012). To assess the significance of the indirect effects, we applied a Bayesian technique for multilevel modeling (Muthén et al., 2017) and the Monte Carlo resampling method (Bauer et al., 2006) to estimate the respective confidence intervals. These have been shown to enhance statistical power to identify indirect effects in multilevel modeling (Preacher et al., 2010). In addition, to avoid conflation between Level 1 and Level 2 effects, and thus to obtain unbiased estimates of the multilevel interactions, we group mean centered leader inclusiveness, team resilience capacity, and the control variables (i.e., Level 1 variables), and grand mean centered organizational diversity climate (i.e., Level 2 variable) (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). 4|RESULTS 4.1 |Descriptive statistics and correlations Table 1presents the means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alphas, and correlations of the study's variables. Due to the hierarchical structure of our data, we display both team-level and organization-level correlations. 4.2 |Hypothesis testing Table 2summarizes the findings related to direct and conditional indirect effects as unstandardized coefficients. 4.2.1 | Direct effects We tested the direct effects with simultaneous consideration of the nesting of teams within organizations. Furthermore, we controlled for team size, number of different nationalities within the team, and team tasks. When testing the relationships for team performance, we further controlled for multiple evaluators and the team leader as an evaluator. The results show that leader inclusiveness is positively related to team resilience capacity (γ=.35, p< .01, 95% CI: 0.10,.59), providing support for Hypothesis 1. In turn, team resilience capacity has a positive effect on team performance (i.e., efficiency), thus confirming Hypothesis 2(γ=.97, p< .01, 95% CI: .41, 1.50). 4.2.2 | Indirect effect Before testing the multilevel moderated indirect effects hypothesis, we examined the hypothesized indirect effect at the team level (Level 1). We tested the indirect effect of leader inclusiveness on team performance through team resilience capacity (Hypothesis 3). Applying a parametric bootstrap procedure outlined by Preacher et al. (2010) with 50 000 Monte Carlo replications, we estimated a 95% confidence interval. Results show a positive indirect effect of leader inclusiveness on team performance via team resilience capacity (estimate =0.73, p< .01, 95% CI: .55, .88), supporting Hypothesis 3. 4.2.3 | Moderation We tested whether the organizational diversity climate moderates the positive relationship between leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity, in that this relationship is more positive in firms with stronger organizational diversity climates (Hypothesis 4). The results of multilevel modeling highlight that organizational diversity climate has a positive effect on the random slope between leader inclusiveness and team resilience (γ=0.72, p=.02, 95% CI: .01, 1.61), providing support for Hypothesis 4. 376 HUNDSCHELL ET AL. more effectively, especially in multinational teams. Organization Science,33, 1554–1573. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1480 Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,60, 541–572. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2005). Warning! Diversity recruitment could backfire. Journal of Management Inquiry,14, 330–336. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1056492605280 McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2008). Mean racial-ethnic differences in employee sales performance: The moderating role of diversity climate. Personnel Psychology,61, 349–374. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00116.x Meneghel, I., Martínez, I. M., & Salanova, M. (2016). Job-related antecedents of team resilience and improved team performance. Personnel Review,45(3), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2014-0094 Meneghel, I., Salanova, M., & Martínez, I. M. (2016). Feeling good makes us stronger: How team resilience mediates the effect of positive emotions on team performance. Journal of Happiness Studies,17, 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9592-6 Minbaeva, D., Fitzsimmons, S., & Brewster, C. (2021). Beyond the doubleedged sword of cultural diversity in teams: Progress, critique, and next steps. Journal of International Business Studies,52,45–55. https://doi. org/10.1057/s41267-020-00390-2 Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., Parker, V., Giles, M., Chiang, V., & Joyce, P. (2015). Managing inclusiveness and diversity in teams: How leader inclusiveness affects performance through status and team identity. Human Resource Management,54, 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm. 21658 Mo, S., Ling, C. D., & Xie, X. Y. (2019). The curvilinear relationship between ethical leadership and team creativity: The moderating role of team faultlines. Journal of Business Ethics,154, 229–242. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10551-016-3430-1 Mor Barak, M. E., Luria, G., & Brimhall, K. C. (2022). What leaders say versus what they do: Inclusive leadership, policy-practice decoupling, and the anomaly of climate for inclusion. Group and Organization Management,47(4), 840–871. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960112110059 Muthén, B. O., Muthén, L. K., & Asparouhov, T. (2017). Regression and mediation analysis using Mplus. Muthén & Muthén. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus Version 7 user's guide. Muthén & Muthén. 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, 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413 Nielsen, J., Firth, B., & Crawford, E. (2023). For better and worse: How proactive personality alters the strain responses to challenge and hindrance stressors. Organization Science,34, 589–612. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/orsc.2022.1587 Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal,56(6), 1754–1774. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823 Nishii, L. H., & Leroy, H. (2022). A multi-level framework of inclusive leadership in organizations. Group & Organization Management,47, 683– 722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601122111150 Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader– member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology,94, 1412–1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0017190 Park, S., Park, S., & Shryack, J. (2023). Measures of climate for inclusion and diversity: Review and summary. Human Resource Development Quarterly,34, 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21493 Parker, S. K., Van den Broeck, A., & Holman, D. (2017). Work design influences: A synthesis of multilevel factors that affect the design of jobs. Academy of Management Annals,11, 267–308. https://doi.org/10. 5465/annals.2014.0054 Podsakoff, N. P., Blume, B. D., Whiting, S. W., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2009). Individualand organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079 Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141 Raetze, S., Duchek, S., Maynard, M. T., & Wohlgemuth, M. (2022). Resilience in organization-related research: An integrative conceptual review across disciplines and levels of analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,107, 867–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000952 Randel, A. E. (2023). Inclusion in the workplace: A review and research agenda. Group & Organization Management, 10596011231175578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601123117557 Randel, A. E., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B., & Shore, L. (2016). Leader inclusiveness, psychological diversity climate, and helping behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology,31, 216–234. https://doi. org/10.1108/JMP-04-2013-0123 Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review,28, 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.07.002 Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives,11,21–31. https://doi.org/10. 5465/ame.1997.9709231661 Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,43, 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)900 60-5 Selvarajan, T. T., Cloninger, P. A., & Singh, B. (2013). Social support and work–family conflict: A test of an indirect effects model. Journal of Vocational Behavior,83, 486–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013. 07.004 Shen, Y., Chou, W.-J., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2019). The roles of relational identification and workgroup cultural values in linking authoritarian leadership to employee performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,28, 498–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1359432X.2019.1615453 Shore, L., & Chung, B. (2022). Inclusive leadership: How leaders sustain or discourage work group inclusion. Group and Organization Management, 47, 723–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121999 Shore, L., & Chung, B. (2023). Enhancing leader inclusion while preventing social exclusion in the work group. Human Resource Management Review,33(1–16), 100902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022. 100902 Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management,37, 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631038594 Shortell, S. M., Rousseau, D. M., Gillies, R. R., Devers, K. J., & Simons, T. L. (1991). Organizational assessment in intensive care units (ICUs): Construct development, reliability, and validity of the ICU nurse-physician questionnaire. Medical Care,29(8), 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1097/ 00005650-199108000-00004 Sommer, S. A., Howell, J. M., & Hadley, C. N. (2016). Keeping positive and building strength: The role of affect and team leadership in developing resilience during an organizational crisis. Group & Organization Management,41, 172–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011155 78027 Stahl, G. K., & Maznevski, M. L. (2021). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A retrospective of research on multicultural work groups and an agenda for future research. Journal of International HUNDSCHELL ET AL.383 Business Studies,52,4–22. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-02000389-9 Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 690–709. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85 Steiner, I. D. (1966). Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Systems Research and Behavioral Science,11, 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830110404 Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E. D., Carmeli, A., Spreitzer, G. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2013). Relationship quality and virtuousness: Emotional carrying capacity as a source of individual and team resilience. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,49,13–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00218863124711 Stoverink, A. C., Kirkman, B. L., Mistry, S., & Rosen, B. (2020). Bouncing back together: Toward a theoretical model of work team resilience. Academy of Management Review,45, 395–422. https://doi.org/10. 5465/amr.2017.0005 Stuart, H. C., & Moore, C. (2017). Shady characters: The implications of illicit organizational roles for resilient team performance. Academy of Management Journal,60, 1963–1985. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj. 2014.0512 Sürücü, L., Maslakçı, A., & Şes¸en, H. (2023). Inclusive leadership and innovative work behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,44,87–102. https://doi.org/10. 1108/LODJ-05-2022-0227 Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 94–110). BerrettKoehler. Van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2022). A diversity mindsets perspective on inclusive leadership. Group and Organizational Management,47, 779–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601121997229 Vera, M., Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M., & Salanova, M. (2017). May the force be with you: Looking for resources that build team resilience. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health,32, 119–138. https://doi.org/10. 1080/15555240.2017.1329629 Volpone, S. D., Marquardt, D. J., Casper, W. J., & Avery, D. R. (2018). Minimizing cross-cultural maladaptation: How minority status facilitates change in international acculturation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000273 Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Paul, J., Burke, M., Christian, M., & Eissa, G. (2016). Change the referent? A meta-analytic investigation of direct and referent-shift consensus models for organizational climate. Journal of Management,42, 838–861. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0149206313484520 Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2393372,https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2393372 West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & Carsten, M. K. (2009). Team level positivity: Investigating positive psychological capacities and team level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior,30, 249–267. https://doi. org/10.1002/job.593 Woehr, D. J., Loignon, A. C., Schmidt, P. B., Loughry, M. L., & Ohland, M. W. (2015). Justifying aggregation with consensus-based constructs: A review and examination of cutoff values for common aggregation indices. Organizational Research Methods,18, 704–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442811558209 AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Andreas Hundschell is a post-doctoral research associate at the Institute for Leadership and Organization (ILO) at LudwigMaximilians Universität München (Munich, Germany). His main research interests are the collaboration and leadership in multinational teams, in particular from a behavioral perspective. His research has been published in journals such as Applied Psychology and Journal of International Management. Julia Backmann is a professor and the head of the chair for transformation of work and the codirector of the Research Center for Business Transformation (ChanCe) at the University of Münster. Before joining the University of Münster, she worked as an assistant professor at the University College Dublin and the LudwigMaximilians-Universität (LMU). She received her PhD from the WHU (Germany). Her research interests include leadership and teamwork in challenging contexts and the future of work. Amy Wei Tian (PhD Cardiff University) is a professor of Management at Curtin University (Australia). Her research focuses on how strategic human resource management and leadership affect people's attitudinal and behavioral outcomes such as creativity and innovation. She also examines how multicultural employees, leaders, and teams can contribute to team and organizational success. Amy is the associate editor for Journal of Business Research, Applied Psychology, and Australia Journal of Management. Martin Hoegl is a professor and the head of the Institute for Leadership and Organization (ILO) at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (Munich, Germany). Before joining LMU Munich, he served on the faculties of Washington State University (USA), Bocconi University (Milan, Italy), and WHU (Vallendar, Germany). His main research interests include leadership, collaboration, and innovation in organizations. He has published works in the Academy of Management Journal, Decision Sciences, Human Relations, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management, Journal of Product Innovation Management, MIT Sloan Management Review, Organization Science, and other journals. How to cite this article: Hundschell, A., Backmann, J., Tian, A. W., & Hoegl, M. (2025). Leader inclusiveness and team resilience capacity in multinational teams: The role of organizational diversity climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior,46(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2829 384 HUNDSCHELL ET AL.