SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2018, 46(5), 705-720
© 2018 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6711
HOW LEADERSHIP AND TRUST IN LEADERS FOSTER
EMPLOYEES’ BEHAVIOR TOWARD KNOWLEDGE SHARING
LE BA PHONG
Hunan University and Hanoi University of Industry
LEI HUI
Hunan University
THAN THANH SON
Hanoi University of Industry
We explored the effect of transformational leadership and trust in leaders on knowledge
collecting and knowledge donating, the 2 components of knowledge sharing, with data from
368 employees at 63 Chinese firms. The results showed that trust in leaders mediated the
relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing. In addition, transformational leadership had a greater effect than did trust in leaders on knowledge donating,
and aspects of trust in leaders had a greater effect than did transformational leadership on
knowledge collecting. The findings provide theoretical insights and practical initiatives for
knowledge management.
Keywords: knowledge management, knowledge sharing, knowledge collecting, knowledge
donating, transformational leadership, trust in leaders.
Knowledge management is a primary source for organizations to develop
core competencies, improve performance (Sheng, Chang, Teo, & Lin, 2013),
create value, and attain a competitive advantage (Rahimli, 2012). Knowledge
sharing (KS) is an important component of knowledge management (Du, Ai,
& Ren, 2007). It is the process of individuals exchanging knowledge to create
Le Ba Phong, School of Business Administration, Hunan University, and Faculty of Business
Management, Hanoi University of Industry; Lei Hui, School of Business Administration, Hunan
University; Than Thanh Son, Faculty of Business Management, Hanoi University of Industry.
This research was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(71272208).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lei Hui, School of Business
Administration, Hunan University, B302, No. 11, Lushan South Road, Changsha, Hunan, People’s
Republic of China, 410082. Email: leihui@vip.126.com
705
706
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
new and useful knowledge (van den Hooff & de Ridder, 2004). The success of a
knowledge management initiative depends on the extent of KS in an organization
(S. Wang & Noe, 2010). KS provides a complete set of essential skills and
knowledge for individuals to work or achieve goals more efficiently. It not
only becomes a key resource for them to learn new techniques, solve problems,
generate core competencies, and achieve continuous innovation (Liao, Fei, &
Chen, 2007), but also plays an important role in building a competitive advantage
for firms (J. Chen, Jiao, & Zhao, 2016). However, few researchers have studied
KS in a Chinese context (Ma, Qi, & Wang, 2008). Therefore, it is necessary to
identify the factors that promote KS among employees in Chinese firms.
Leadership has a crucial role in the success or failure of an organization
(Huang, Hsu, & Chiau, 2011). Each leadership style has a significant impact on
employees’ attitude and work motivation as well as their KS behavior (de Vries,
Bakker-Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010). Transformational leadership (TL) is the
leadership style that not only heightens individuals’ awareness of organizational
benefits, but also helps them to attain these benefits (Bass & Avolio, 2000).
Thomson, Rawson, Slade, and Bledsoe (2016) found that TL was one of the most
effective leadership styles. It is associated with positive outcomes as well as with
KS (Li, Shang, Liu, & Xi, 2014), as transformational leaders consider employees
to be a valuable resource. Theories of TL emphasize the important role of emotions
and values, and leadership oriented toward encouraging positive and creative
behavior in employees (Bass & Avolio, 2000; García-Morales, Matías-Reche, &
Hurtado-Torres, 2008). Transformational leaders inspire their followers to gain
the highest level of achievement for managerial performance (Nguyen, Mia,
Winata, & Chong, 2017). Thus, TL has attracted much attention from researchers
and become a dominant leadership theory (Mhatre & Riggio, 2014).
Although TL is a pertinent leadership style for effectively managing KS
(Birasnav, Rangnekar, & Dalpati, 2011), there is little research on the relationship
between TL and KS (Han, Seo, Yoon, & Yoon, 2016; S. Wang & Noe, 2010). S.
Wang and Noe (2010) suggested that further research is needed on the influence
of leadership characteristics on KS in relation to employees’ trust in leaders, as a
mediating variable. Han et al. (2016) identified a need for more research on the
mechanisms and processes through which TL has an impact on the motivation and
attitudes of employees toward KS. Therefore, on the basis of these researchers’
and Ma et al.’s (2008) suggestions, we explored the impact of TL on KS in the
Chinese context via the mediating role of trust in leaders (see Figure 1). We asked
the following research questions: Does TL have a significant influence on KS?
How different are the various aspects of trust’s influence on KS? Do aspects of
trust in leaders have a mediating role between TL and KS?
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
Trust in leaders
Control variable
Education, gender,
experience, position
Disclosure-based trust
d
H2
, c,
a, b
a, b
Transformational
leadership
H3
Reliance-based trust
707
H1a, b
Knowledge sharing
Knowledge collecting
Knowledge donating
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Literature Review and Development of Hypotheses
Transformational Leadership and Knowledge Sharing
KS is closely related to the long-term performance and competitiveness of a
firm (Du et al., 2007). There are two processes in KS: knowledge donating, which
involves individuals actively communicating or supplying personal intellectual
capital to colleagues, and knowledge collecting, which involves individuals
actively consulting colleagues to learn skills and information from them (van
den Hooff & de Ridder, 2014). This valuable classification reflects two sets of
individuals’ behavior in KS. Individuals’ behavior and attitude toward KS are
decisive factors in the success of KS (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005).
TL is a strategic factor in increasing KS (Li et al., 2014). Transformational leaders
can motivate employees to execute their work beyond their expectations and help
them reach their full potential in the organization. TL consists of four factors:
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration,
and idealized influence (Bass, 1985). Inspirational motivation reflects the ability
of a leader to motivate followers largely through communication of a strong
sense of purpose and confidence in the organization’s mission. Intellectual
stimulation refers to a leader’s willingness to promote followers’ intelligence,
knowledge, and learning, which helps them to have innovative problem-solving
skills. Individualized consideration is characterized by a leader’s transparency,
support, respect, and appreciation for followers’ contribution to organizational
achievement. Idealized influence creates the necessary pride and respect for, and
trust in, the leader, who is an inspiration for followers to act ethically.
In this study, we used four items from a scale designed by Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, and Bommer (1996) to measure the different aspects of TL
(García-Morales et al., 2008). They characterize transformational leaders as those
who are capable of motivating and guiding their followers, emphasizing clarity
in their communication about organizational goals, acting as the organization’s
leading force, promoting new skill development among their followers, and
708
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
continually seeking new opportunities for their organization’s development
(García-Morales et al., 2008; Podsakoff et al., 1996).
TL is one of the most pertinent leadership styles for promoting KS (Birasnav
et al., 2011). Transformational leaders set up a knowledgeable and supportive
culture that shapes employees’ attitude toward KS by developing a set of values,
assumptions, and beliefs related to knowledge. This culture has a significant
impact on KS among employees (Zhu, Chew, & Spangler, 2005). For example,
Al-Husseini and Elbeltagi (2012) found that the four components of TL had a
positive impact on individuals’ KS in Iraqi higher education institutions. Akpotu
and Tamunosiki-Amadi (2013) also reported that the four TL components
significantly affected KS in Nigerian firms, and Li et al. (2014) found that TL
had a positive impact on KS at both individual and group levels. In addition,
Rawung, Wuryaningrat, and Elvinita (2015) found that two TL components,
namely, inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation, had a positive
impact on individuals’ KS in Indonesian small and medium firms. Han et al.
(2016) recently stated that transformational leaders not only paid attention to
continually learning, but also encouraged people to share knowledge for mutual
development. Han et al. found that TL had a positive indirect effect on KS via
employees’ organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.
Thus, our aim was to further explain the effect of TL on knowledge collecting
and knowledge donating. We proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: Transformational leadership will have a positive impact on
knowledge collecting.
Hypothesis 1b: Transformational leadership will have a positive impact on
knowledge donating.
Transformational Leadership and Trust in Leaders
Trust manifests as the degree of confidence that one individual has in another’s
competence and that he or she will always act in a fair, ethical, and predictable
manner (Nyhan, 2000). Joseph and Winston (2005) listed different types of trust,
namely, interpersonal trust, interorganizational trust, political trust, societal trust,
peer trust in the workplace, organizational trust, and trust in leaders, which
is the result of successful leadership. Trust in leaders is based on employees’
perceptions of the leader’s character, such as competency, integrity, and care and
concern for others (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (2007)
stated that trust in leaders is the employee’s willingness to be vulnerable to the
leader’s actions, on the basis of a positive expectation of the leader’s intentions.
There are two types of trust in leaders: reliance-based trust, which is defined
as an individual’s readiness to place reliance on work-related skills, abilities,
and knowledge of another, and disclosure-based trust, which is described as an
individual’s willingness to disclose work-related sensitive aspects or personal
opinions and information to another (Gillespie, 2003; Zand, 1972). We used
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
709
these concepts to measure trust in leaders, because they acknowledge the need to
reduce the vulnerability and risk that is inherent in trust (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt,
& Camerer, 1998; Zand, 1972), and were specifically designed to measure trust
in leadership (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).
Previous researchers have supported the correlation between leadership style
and trust in leaders. For example, Robbins (2002) posited that when followers
have trust in a leader, they are confident that their rights and interests will not
be misused. Agote, Aramburu, and Lines (2016) demonstrated that authentic
leadership had a direct positive impact on followers’ trust in the leader. Bedi,
Alpaslan, and Green (2016) found that ethical leadership was significantly
related to the level of an employee’s trust in the leader, as it positively influenced
both cognitive and affective trust in the leader. In particular, Dirks and Ferrin
(2002) indicated that TL was positively related to trust in leaders. B. Wang et
al. (2016) stated recently that trust reflected the quality of the leader–individual
exchange relationship, and they described a strong and significant relationship
between TL and trust in the leader in their study.
However, as few researchers have specifically explored the effect of TL on trust
in leaders (Lee, Gillespie, Mann, & Wearing, 2010), this limits understanding of
the different mechanisms that leaders may use to establish employees’ trust.
Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Transformational leadership will have a positive effect on disclosure-based trust in leaders.
Hypothesis 2b: Transformational leadership will have a positive effect on
reliance-based trust in leaders.
Trust in Leaders and Knowledge Sharing
Although previous researchers have paid little attention to the correlation
between trust and KS, Davenport and Prusak (1998) posited that trust acts as an
antecedent to, and is at the center of, KS. If individuals trust their leaders and
colleagues, they show more intention to actively participate in KS and are more
willing to provide useful knowledge (Cheng, Yeh, & Tu, 2008; Zand, 1972).
Trust in leaders has an indirect influence on KS via employees’ perceptions of
fairness, because it reflects their perceptions of being treated at an expected level
of fairness and ethics, and the perception of fairness is essential for facilitating
KS in an organization (Ibragimova, 2006). According to Renzl (2008), trust in
leaders increases KS via an employee’s willingness to document knowledge. In
their meta-analysis, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) proposed that individuals’ trust in
their leaders is positively related to information exchange. In addition, Lee et
al. (2010) found that trust in a leader had a direct positive influence on KS, and
played a mediating role in the relationship between leadership and KS. Therefore,
when employees have a high level of trust in their leaders’ fairness and ethics,
710
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
they are ready and able to share their expertise and skill with colleagues to further
their own and the organization’s interests.
In summary, except for Lee et al. (2010), previous researchers have not paid
attention to the impact of disclosure-based and reliance-based trust in leaders on
KS. Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Disclosure-based trust in leaders will have a positive impact on
knowledge collecting.
Hypothesis 3b: Disclosure-based trust in leaders will have a positive impact on
knowledge donating.
Hypothesis 3c: Reliance-based trust in leaders will have a positive impact on
knowledge collecting.
Hypothesis 3d: Reliance-based trust in leaders will have a positive impact on
knowledge donating.
On the basis of our discussion of the relationship between TL, trust in leaders,
and KS, we, therefore, proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Trust in leaders will play a mediating role between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing.
Method
Participants and Procedure
We collected empirical data through a survey of leaders and staff of 63 large
Chinese manufacturing and service firms in Hunan, Beijing, and Guangdong. We
contacted representatives of these companies to ask for their help in distributing
and collecting the surveys. We chose participants who were employees (deputy
directors, heads of departments, team leaders, and staff) in administration,
operations, accounting, marketing, and sales departments. This ensured that
participants had an understanding of the firm and knowledge of the operating
environment of the organization, as well as the ability to frequently take part in
information exchange.
The surveys were sent to 700 employees and we received back 556, of which
368 (52.5%) were valid. Of the 368 participants, 233 (63.3%) were men and
135 (36.7%) were women. We followed Armstrong and Overton’s (1977)
procedure to reduce nonresponse bias. We used chi-square (2) and independent
sample t tests to compare the first 80 and the last 80 participants, based on the
demographic variables of age, gender, and education level. The results showed
no significant differences between the two groups (p > .05).
Measures
We evaluated the measurement items using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from either 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, or 1 = strongly unwilling
to 5 = strongly willing.
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
711
Transformational leadership. We followed the procedures of Coad and Berry
(1998) and García-Morales et al. (2008) to measure employees’ perceptions of
their leader’s TL style, with four items designed by Podsakoff et al. (1996). Sample
items are “The organization has leaders who are capable of motivating and guiding
their colleagues on the job” and “The firm’s leader always acts as the organization’s
leading force.” We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the
items, 2 = 3.62, degrees of freedom (df) = 2, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = .047, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .99, comparative fit index (CFI)
= .99, normed fit index (NFI) = .99, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .99, incremental
fit index (IFI) = .99.
Trust in leaders. To measure trust in leaders, we used Gillespie’s (2003)
10-item Behavioral Trust Inventory, with five items each for the two types of
trust in leaders, namely, reliance and disclosure. A sample item for reliance
is “How willing are you to depend on your leader to back you up in difficult
situations?” A sample item for disclosure is “How willing are you to share your
personal feelings with your leader?” We performed CFA to check the validity
of the items for reliance, 2 = 5.35, df = 3, RMSEA = .046, GFI = .99, CFI
= .99, NFI = .99, TLI = .99, IFI = .99, and for disclosure, 2 = 9.03, df = 4,
RMSEA = .059, GFI = .99, CFI = .99, NFI = .99, TLI = .99, IFI = .99.
Knowledge collecting and knowledge donating. We used 10 items
adapted from van den Hooff and de Leeuw van Weenen (2004) and Liao
et al. (2007) to measure KS, with five items each for the two types of
KS: knowledge collecting and knowledge donating. A sample item for
knowledge collecting is “My colleagues often share with me the working
skills they know when I ask them.” A sample item for knowledge donating
is “I often share with my colleagues the new working skills that I learn.” We
conducted CFA to validate the items for knowledge collecting, 2 = 16.81,
df = 5, RMSEA = .07, GFI = .98, CFI = .99, NFI = .99, TLI = .98, IFI = .99, and
for knowledge donating, 2 = 8.98, df = 4, RMSEA = .074, GFI = .99, CFI = .99,
NFI = .99, TLI = .99, IFI = .99. In general, every scale was unidimensional and
had high reliability (Cronbach’s > .80).
Control variables. We controlled for the demographic variables of education
level, gender, workplace position, and workplace experience, to account for
differences among firms and their potential impact on KS. This is consistent with
previous researchers.
Results
Measurement Model
We first examined the internal reliability of the scales using Cronbach’s ,
with the results ranging from .81 to .95, which all exceeded the .70 threshold
suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). We then carried out CFA to assess
the measurement model in terms of convergent and discriminant validity.
712
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
We tested convergent validity in terms of factor loadings and average variance
extracted (AVE). According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), factor loadings
should be significant and exceed .50, composite reliability should exceed .60,
and the average variance extracted (AVE) should be greater than .50 for all
constructs. The results showed that our model satisfied the convergent validity
criteria (see Table 1).
Table 1. Convergent Validity and Reliability Results
Construct
TL
M
3.50
SD
0.49
LD
3.50
0.58
LR
3.62
0.56
KC
3.72
0.60
KD
3.79
0.55
WE
PG
WP
PE
2.35
1.36
3.12
2.13
0.97
0.48
0.98
0.58
Loading
AVE
TL1
TL2
TL3
TL4
LD1
LD2
LD3
LD4
LD5
LR1
LR2
LR3
LR4
LR5
KC1
KC2
KC3
KC4
KC5
KD1
KD2
KD3
KD4
KD5
WE
PG
WP
PE
.74***
.53
.81
.81
.70
.92
.92
.74
.93
.93
.79
.95
.95
.72
.92
.93
.75***
.64***
.76***
.90***
.83***
.73***
.91***
.81***
.80***
.96***
.95***
.69***
.86***
.85***
.80***
.97***
.83***
.96***
.83***
.86***
.87***
.82***
.85***
1
1
1
1
CR
Item
1
1
1
1
Note. AVE = average variance extracted ≥ .50, CR = composite reliability ≥ .70, Cronbach’s ≥.70,
TL = transformational leadership, LD = disclosure-based trust in leaders, LR = reliance-based trust
in leaders, KC = knowledge collecting, KD = knowledge donating, WE = workplace experience, PG
= participants’ gender, WP = workplace position, PE = participants’ education level. *** p < .001.
Discriminant validity is satisfied if the square root of the AVE for each
construct is greater than the correlation between the construct and any other
construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As the results showed that the square root
713
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
of AVE was greater than the correlations between the constructs, discriminant
validity was demonstrated (see Table 2).
Table 2. Construct Correlations and Average Variance Extracted
Construct
TL
LD
LR
KC
KD
WE
PG
WP
TL
LD
LR
KC
KD
WE
PG
WP
PE
.73
.54
.52
.61
.67
.40
.03
-.03
.48
.84
.51
.59
.63
.33
-.01
.01
.51
.86
.61
.61
.33
-.03
-.01
.52
.91
.62
.59
-.06
-.01
.65
.92
.48
-.01
.01
.72
1
-.07
-.03
.45
1
-.01
.01
1
.06
PE
1
Note. The square root of average variance extracted (AVE) is in bold on the diagonal. Off-diagonal
elements are the correlations among constructs. TL = transformational leadership, LD = disclosurebased trust in leaders, LR = reliance-based trust in leaders, KC = knowledge collecting, KD =
knowledge donating, WE = workplace experience, PG = participants’ gender, WP = workplace
position, PE = participants’ education level.
The fit indices of the measurement model are shown in Table 3. As all fit
indices were at a satisfactory level, the model fit the data.
Table 3. Overall Fit Index of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model
Fix index
Absolute fit measure
CMIN/df
GFI
RMSEA
Incremental fit measure
NFI
AGFI
CFI
a
Score
Recommended threshold value
1.492
.918
.037
≤ 2a, ≤ 5b
≥ .90a, ≥ .80b
≤ .08a, ≤ .10b
.950
.895
. 983
≥ .90a
≥ .90a, ≥ .80b
≥ .90a
b
Note. Acceptability = acceptable, Acceptability = marginal. CMIN/df = minimum discrepancy, GFI
= goodness of fit index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, NFI = normed fit index,
AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index, CFI = comparative fit index.
Testing of Hypotheses
We performed a series of separate regression analyses to test the hypotheses
(see Table 4).
Direct effects analysis. All path coefficients for direct effects were significant
and in line with the hypotheses (see Table 4). Models 1 and 2 show that TL had
a significant positive effect on disclosure-based trust ( = .318, p < .001) and
.124**
-.039
-.055
.342***
.285***
.365
.318***
.336
Model 2
.058
-.006
-.008
.332***
Model 1
Trust in leaders
LD
LR
.598
.261***
.312***
-.036
.008
.396***
Model 3
KC
.578
.340***
.113**
-.025
-.007
.480***
Model 4
.223***
.222***
.639
.308***
-.021
.018
.290***
Model 5
Knowledge sharing
KD
KC
.242***
.211***
.586
.115**
-.006
-.001
.397***
Model 6
KD
.196***
.199***
.607
.159***
.307***
-.030
.021
.289***
Model 7
.190***
.164***
.583
.251***
.088**
-.019
.003
.386***
Model 8
Mediating effect
KC
KD
Note. WE = workplace experience, PG = participants’ gender, WP = workplace position, TL = transformational leadership, LD = disclosure-based trust in
leaders, LR = reliance-based trust in leaders, KC = knowledge collecting, KD = knowledge donating. ** p < .05, *** p < .001.
Control variable
WE
PG
WP
Education level
Independent variable
TL
Mediators
LD
LR
R2
Variable
Table 4. Regression Analysis Results
714
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
715
reliance-based trust in leaders ( = .285, p < .001). Hypotheses 2a and 2b were
therefore supported. Models 3 and 4 show that TL was positively correlated
with knowledge collecting ( = .261, p < .001) and knowledge donating ( =
.340, p < .001). Hypotheses 1a and 1b were therefore supported. Model 5 shows
that both disclosure-based and reliance-based trust in leaders had a significant
positive impact on knowledge collecting ( = .222 and .223, respectively,
p < .001). Hypotheses 3a and 3b were thus supported. As Model 6 shows that
disclosure-based and reliance-based trust in leaders were positively correlated
with knowledge donating ( = .211 and .242, respectively, p < .001), Hypotheses
3c and 3d were supported.
We examined the control role of demographic variables for dependent factors
in the eight models (see Table 4). The results showed that the coefficient for
experience was significant at p < .05 in all models, excluding Model 1. This
showed that (a) individuals with more experience were more willing to share
their knowledge, (b) as the coefficient for gender and position was insignificant
in all models, these variables had no controlling role for trust in leaders and KS,
and (c) the coefficient for education level was significant (p < .01) in all models.
Thus, employees with more work experience and a higher level of education
were more willing to share their knowledge, and their trust in leaders was higher
than those with less work experience and a lower level of education.
Test of the mediating effect. We added employees’ trust in leaders as a
mediator between TL and knowledge collecting (Model 7) and between TL and
knowledge donating (Model 8). In comparison with Model 3 and Model 4, the
direct effect of TL on knowledge collecting decreased from .261 (p < .001) to
.159 (p < .001), and on knowledge donating decreased from .340 (p < .001)
to .251 (p < .001). Thus, disclosure-based and reliance-based trust in leaders
partially mediated the effect of TL on knowledge collecting and knowledge
donating.
To provide evidence for the mediating role of trust in leaders in the relationship
between TL and KS, we undertook further analysis to verify the magnitude
and statistical significance of the indirect effects. For statistical inference, as
suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008), we used bootstrap resampling (5,000
iterations) to generate confidence intervals to test the significance of indirect
effects.
Table 5 shows that the indirect effect of TL on knowledge collecting
( = .190, p < .001) had a confidence interval range that did not include zero
[0.128, 0.250]. The indirect effect of TL on knowledge donating ( = .170,
p < .001) also had a confidence interval range that did not include zero [0.118,
0.225]. Thus, the mediating role of disclosure-based and reliance-based trust in
leaders in the relationship between TL and KS was supported.
716
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
Table 5. Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis
Path relationship
Direct
effects
Indirect
effects
Total
effects
Bias-corrected
95% confidence intervals
Lower limit
TL→Trust→KC
TL→Trust→KD
.159***
.251***
.190***
.170***
.349***
.421***
0.128
0.118
Upper limit
0.250
0.225
Note. TL = transformational leadership, KC = knowledge collecting, KD = knowledge donating.
*** p < .001.
Discussion
As KS is a crucial component of knowledge management, it is vital for the
success of an organization (Mueller, 2014). However, it is not easy to promote
organizational KS, because either individuals may fear being taken advantage
of, or they want to attain or preserve an advantage from the knowledge they
possess (Song, Park, & Kang, 2015). Moreover, C.-C. Chen (2011) argued that
the reluctance to share knowledge makes individuals’ knowledge unavailable
for transmission and thus difficult for it to become valuable organizational
knowledge. Therefore, it is essential to identify factors that have a significant
and positive effect on KS, especially in a Chinese context (Ma et al., 2008). Our
findings make a significant contribution to the field of knowledge management
in the Chinese context in three ways.
First, our results increase understanding of the correlation between TL and
KS through a review of the TL literature, which indicates TL’s important role
in the relationship with KS. Our findings confirm that TL has a significant
influence on employees’ KS. The main reason for this may be that TL is one
of the most effective leadership styles (Thomson et al., 2016). In particular, our
findings highlight the important role of TL in promoting knowledge donating
compared with knowledge collecting. This may be because transformational
leaders treat employees as a valuable organizational resource, and emphasize
the important role of emotions, values, and ethics (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999;
Bass & Avolio, 2000). As a result, employees voluntarily and actively share their
personal intellectual capital with colleagues for the benefit and development of
the organization.
Second, as we assessed the influence of TL and trust in leaders on both
aspects of KS, our results make a considerable contribution to the development
of knowledge management initiatives. As knowledge collecting and knowledge
donating form the two types of behavioral tendencies toward an individual’s KS,
this fuller understanding creates favorable conditions for KS, because its success
depends on employees’ behavior and attitude toward KS (Bock et al., 2005).
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
717
Further, following the recommendations of previous researchers (Dietz &
Den Hartog, 2006; Rousseau et al., 1998), to better understand ways to reduce
the vulnerability and risk inherent in trust, we examined both aspects of TL’s
influence on trust in leaders. The results show that TL has a greater impact on
disclosure-based than on reliance-based trust in leaders. This finding shows
that the positive characteristics of TL have a considerable impact on followers’
willingness to disclose work-related sensitive aspects or personal opinions. This
is useful for leaders making decisions related to the shared work of the firm.
Moreover, the findings also show that TL has a greater effect on knowledge
donating than on knowledge collecting, and aspects of trust in leaders have
a greater effect on knowledge collecting than on knowledge donating. The
identification of relationships among structures provides valuable and specific
guidance for directors and managers to have the desired effect on both aspects
of KS. Specifically, if leaders wish to stimulate employees to voluntarily and
actively engage in KS, they should pay more attention to TL; if leaders wish to
increase the willingness of employees to share skills and information as their
colleagues need it, they should increase awareness of the importance of building
trust among employees, particularly employees’ trust in leaders (Lee et al., 2010).
Third, per S. Wang and Noe’s (2010) ideas for future research, Ma et al.’s
(2008) recommendation to investigate aspects of KS in a Chinese context,
and Han et al.’s (2016) proposal to assess the mechanisms and processes that
explain TL’s impact on employees’ attitude toward KS, our results have helped
to fill theoretical gaps by connecting TL, trust in leaders, and KS in one model.
Our findings have verified the mediating role of both aspects of trust in leaders
and highlight that TL helps to create a significant impact on KS directly or
indirectly through building employees’ trust in their leaders. Moreover, through
our examination of the influence of control variables, our findings show that
education level and workplace experience have a considerable impact on KS.
The important practical implications of our findings are that leaders should
strengthen training and retraining activities to create conditions for improving
KS, and focus attention on the point of view, ideas, and importance of the role,
of experienced employees, and those with higher levels of education.
There are some limitations in this study. First, the study data are cross-sectional.
This hinders a longitudinal examination of the conceptual framework, which is
important given that an individual’s emotions and trust level may change over
time (Smollan, 2013). Therefore, to confirm our results, it is necessary to conduct
longitudinal studies. Second, the results and benchmarks in this study are suitable
only in a Chinese context. Future researchers may provide a clearer picture in
terms of the relationships among the constructs, in other contexts. Third, we did
not examine the correlation between latent factors influencing moderators, such
as education or workplace experience. As they can have a considerable influence
718
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
on KS (S. Wang & Noe, 2010), it is necessary for further researchers to explore
more deeply the relationship between TL and KS by assessing the moderating
roles of education and workplace experience. Nevertheless, our findings
contribute to theoretical initiatives in the field of knowledge management, and
can be used to analyze TL relationships, aspects of trust in leaders, and KS.
References
Agote, L., Aramburu, N., & Lines, R. (2016). Authentic leadership perception, trust in the leader,
and followers’ emotions in organizational change processes. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 52, 35–63. https://doi.org/bzkf
Akpotu, C., & Tamunosiki-Amadi, J. (2013). Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing
in ICT based organizations in Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4,
100–106.
Al-Husseini, S., & Elbeltagi, I. (2012). The impact of leadership style and knowledge sharing
on innovation in Iraqi higher education institutions. In J. Surakka (Ed.), Proceedings of the
4th European International Conference on Intellectual Capital: Arcada University of Applied
Sciences, Helsinki, Finland, 23–24 April 2012 (pp. 26–35). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of
Marketing Research, 14, 396–402. https://doi.org/dngdgv
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462. https://doi.org/cz7vqw
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City,
CA: Mind Garden.
Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C. M., & Green, S. (2016). A meta-analytic review of ethical leadership outcomes
and moderators. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 517–536. https://doi.org/b8g9
Birasnav, M., Rangnekar, S., & Dalpati, A. (2011). Transformational leadership and human capital
benefits: The role of knowledge management. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
32, 106–126. https://doi.org/djg48f
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87–111.
Chen, C.-C. (2011). Factors affecting high school teachers’ knowledge-sharing behaviors. Social
Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 39, 993–1008. https://doi.org/fpnv8t
Chen, J., Jiao, H., & Zhao, X. (2016). A knowledge-based theory of the firm: Managing innovation in
biotechnology. Chinese Management Studies, 10, 41–58. https://doi.org/b8hb
Cheng, J.-H., Yeh, C.-H., & Tu, C.-W. (2008). Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13, 283–295. https://doi.org/bjwts7
Coad, A. F., & Berry, A. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and learning orientation. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 19, 164–172. https://doi.org/cv36j4
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
de Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = communication? The
relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and
leadership outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 367–380. https://doi.org/dt7wbc
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
719
Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35,
557–588. https://doi.org/cnhtds
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611–628. https://doi.org/fvw2m3
Du, R., Ai, S., & Ren, Y. (2007). Relationship between knowledge sharing and performance: A survey
in Xi’an, China. Expert Systems with Applications, 32, 38–46. https://doi.org/b98f3m
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. https://doi.org/cwp
García-Morales, V. J., Matías-Reche, F., & Hurtado-Torres, N. (2008). Influence of transformational
leadership on organizational innovation and performance depending on the level of organizational
learning in the pharmaceutical sector. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21,
188–212. https://doi.org/d9dftr
Gillespie, N. (2003, August). Measuring trust in working relationships: The behavioral trust
inventory. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference, Seattle, WA.
Han, S. H., Seo, G., Yoon, S. W., & Yoon, D.-Y. (2016). Transformational leadership and knowledge
sharing: Mediating roles of employee’s empowerment, commitment, and citizenship behaviors.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 28, 130–149. https://doi.org/b8hc
Huang, C.-M., Hsu, P.-Y., & Chiau, W.-L. (2011). Perceptions of the impact of chief executive
leadership style on organizational performance through successful enterprise resource planning.
Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 39, 865–878. https://doi.org/b6qvpg
Ibragimova, B. (2006). Propensity for knowledge sharing: An organizational justice perspective
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and
organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26, 6–22. https://
doi.org/c3rhnd
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. (2010). Leadership and trust: Their effect on
knowledge sharing and team performance. Management Learning, 41, 473–491. https://doi.org/
cxvnn6
Li, G., Shang, Y., Liu, H., & Xi, Y. (2014). Differentiated transformational leadership and knowledge
sharing: A cross-level investigation. European Management Journal, 32, 554–563. https://
doi.org/b8hd
Liao, S.-H., Fei, W.-C., & Chen, C.-C. (2007). Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and
innovation capability: An empirical study of Taiwan’s knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of
Information Science, 33, 340–359. https://doi.org/bvhqkj
Ma, Z., Qi, L., & Wang, K. (2008). Knowledge sharing in Chinese construction project teams and
its affecting factors: An empirical study. Chinese Management Studies, 2, 97–108. https://
doi.org/bxcszw
Mhatre, K. H., & Riggio, R. E. (2014). Charismatic and transformational leadership: Past, present,
and future. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 221–240).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mueller, J. (2014). A specific knowledge culture: Cultural antecedents for knowledge sharing
between project teams. European Management Journal, 32, 190–202. https://doi.org/b8hg
Nguyen, T. T., Mia, L., Winata, L., & Chong, V. K. (2017). Effect of transformational-leadership style
and management control system on managerial performance. Journal of Business Research, 70,
202–213. https://doi.org/b8hh
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Nyhan, R. C. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role in public sector organizations. The
American Review of Public Administration, 30, 87–109. https://doi.org/c34kbx
720
LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259–298. https://doi.org/c88
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879–891. https://doi.org/b9b2k3
Rahimli, A. (2012). Knowledge management and competitive advantage. Information and Knowledge
Management, 2, 37–43.
Rawung, F. H., Wuryaningrat, N. F., & Elvinita, L. E. (2015). The influence of transformational
and transactional leadership on knowledge sharing: An empirical study on small and medium
businesses in Indonesia. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 20, 123–145.
Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and
knowledge documentation. Omega, 36, 206–220. https://doi.org/c73
Robbins, S. P. (2002). The truth about managing people…and nothing but the truth. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A crossdiscipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404. https://doi.org/ccr4xm
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust:
Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344–354. https://doi.org/bwcntq
Sheng, M. L., Chang, S.-Y., Teo, T., & Lin, Y.-F. (2013). Knowledge barriers, knowledge transfer,
and innovation competitive advantage in healthcare settings. Management Decision, 51, 461–478.
https://doi.org/f4vmrp
Smollan, R. K. (2013). Trust in change managers: The role of affect. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 26, 725–747. https://doi.org/b8jn
Song, C., Park, K. R., & Kang, S.-W. (2015). Servant leadership and team performance: The
mediating role of knowledge-sharing climate. Social Behavior and Personality: An international
journal, 43, 1749–1760. https://doi.org/bb9x
Thomson, N. B., Rawson, J. V., Slade, C. P., & Bledsoe, M. (2016). Transformation and transformational leadership: A review of the current and relevant literature for academic radiologists.
Academic Radiology, 23, 592–599. https://doi.org/b8jp
van den Hooff, B., & de Leeuw van Weenen, F. (2004). Committed to share: Commitment and CMC
use as antecendents of knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, 11, 13–24.
https://doi.org/dh5s9v
van den Hooff, B., & de Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing.
Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 117–130. https://doi.org/dmcv5w
Wang, B., Qian, J., Ou, R., Huang, C., Xu, B., & Xia, Y. (2016). Transformational leadership
and employees’ feedback seeking: The mediating role of trust in leader. Social Behavior and
Personality: An international journal, 44, 1201–1208. https://doi.org/f8zkzk
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research.
Human Resource Management Review, 20, 115–131. https://doi.org/bp2rvg
Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17,
229–239. https://doi.org/cw72p5
Zhu, W., Chew, I. K. H., & Spangler, W. D. (2005). CEO transformational leadership and
organizational outcomes: The mediating role of human–capital-enhancing human resource
management. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 39–52. https://doi.org/dzrp7v
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of
Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2015, 43(10), 1749–1760
© Society for Personality Research
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.10.1749
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE: THE
MEDIATING ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE-SHARING CLIMATE
CHANHOO SONG
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology
KWANGSEO RYAN PARK
Pay Governance Global Consulting Group, Republic of Korea
SEUNG-WAN KANG
Gachon University
We examined servant leadership as a precursor to a knowledge-sharing climate and
demonstrated the mediating role of knowledge-sharing climate in the relationship between
servant leadership and team performance. Data from 67 teams, comprising 1,884 direct sales
representatives of a large cosmetics company in South Korea, were analyzed at the team
level. Actual team sales data were obtained from the company 3 months after surveying, and
regression analyses and bootstrapping were used to test the hypotheses. The results showed
2 key findings: servant leadership positively affected the knowledge-sharing climate of the
team; and knowledge-sharing climate mediated the relationship between servant leadership
and team sales performance. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are
discussed.
Keywords: servant leadership, knowledge-sharing climate, team performance, sales
performance, social exchange theory, social learning theory.
Following Greenleaf’s (1977) conceptualization of servant leadership, a
number of researchers have explored its relationship with various dependent
variables, such as individual job performance (e.g., Liden, Wayne, Zhao,
Chanhoo Song, Department of Business and Technology Management, Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology; Kwangseo Ryan Park, Pay Governance Global Consulting Group, Republic
of Korea; Seung-Wan Kang, College of Business, Gachon University.
This work was supported by the 2015 Gachon University research fund (GCU-2015-0052).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Seung-Wan Kang, College of
Business, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnamdaero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam City, Gyeonggi-do
461-701, Republic of Korea. Email: global7@gachon.ac.kr
1749
1750
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
& Henderson, 2008), individual attitudes (e.g., Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006;
Ehrhart, 2004), team effectiveness (e.g., Irving & Longbotham, 2007), and
corporate social responsibility (e.g., Burlingham, 2007). van Dierendonck (2011)
distinguished six key characteristics of servant leadership from those of other
leadership constructs: empowering and developing people, humility, authenticity,
interpersonal acceptance, providing direction, and stewardship. On the basis
of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and social learning theory (Bandura,
1977), in this study we explored the relationship between servant leadership
and bottom-line performance by incorporating knowledge-sharing climate as a
potential mediator.
Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
Although scholars have emphasized the inevitability of knowledge sharing
because each individual’s knowledge is imperfect (e.g., Hayek, 1945), some
people remain reluctant to engage in this process at work (e.g., Davenport
& Prusak, 1998). Individuals’ natural tendency to hoard knowledge should
be avoided in order to promote a knowledge-sharing climate. Organizational
knowledge accumulation requires members to disseminate knowledge among
the group and to use such knowledge to solve problems or provide new insights
(Goh, 2002).
A number of previous researchers have incorporated knowledge sharing or
knowledge-sharing climate as mediators in the relationship between leadership
and outcomes (e.g., Lee, Gillespie, Mann, & Wearing, 2010; Srivastava, Bartol,
& Locke, 2006). However, few have explored the effect of servant leadership
on knowledge-sharing behaviors. Servant leadership refers to a style in which
leaders go beyond their own self-interests and are concerned with serving
followers with the purpose of allowing them to grow and foster success.
Servant-leaders are characterized by showing altruistic behaviors toward their
followers as they emphasize their followers’ interests first (Barbuto & Wheeler,
2006; Greenleaf, 1977). Such leaders also encourage their followers to put others’
interests first, and often advocate engaging in knowledge-sharing behaviors
among subordinates because a knowledge-sharing climate has been found to be
associated with improved organizational performance.
Knowledge sharing refers to the dissemination of relevant information
within an organization (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002). Stasser and Titus (2003)
showed positive relationships among knowledge sharing, utilization of existing
knowledge, and the quality of decision making. In a qualitative study, Yang
(2004) also found a positive association between knowledge-sharing climate and
organizational effectiveness. Lin (2011) reported positive relationships between
knowledge-sharing climate, knowledge management implementation and
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
1751
institutionalization in organization level, and Radaelli, Mura, Spiller, and
Lettieri (2011) examined knowledge-sharing climate as a full mediator in the
relationship between intellectual capital and knowledge-sharing behaviors.
However, building a knowledge-sharing climate is not an easy task. Individuals
may withhold knowledge from their organization in order to secure promotion
opportunities and avoid time and energy output for little to no compensation
(Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). Organizational members may also be
reluctant to share their knowledge because they do not want to risk being taken
advantage of, or because they want to gain or maintain an advantage within their
organization from the knowledge they possess.
Researchers have investigated a number of knowledge-sharing promotion
factors, including reward systems (e.g., Bartol & Srivastava, 2002), organizational
culture (e.g., Yang, 2007), and leadership style (e.g., Tombul, 2011). Yang (2007)
showed a positive relationship between collaborative culture and knowledge
sharing, and Ardakani (2012) observed a positive association between perceived
justice and knowledge-sharing intention. In the cited literature, researchers have
emphasized the value of knowledge sharing, and suggested that a number of
factors influence behavior in this regard. Thus, we posited that servant leadership
may facilitate the development of a knowledge-sharing climate within an
organization, thereby influencing organizational performance. We used social
exchange theory and social learning theory, specifically, to examine these
relationships.
According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), an individual tries to
reciprocate favors when he/she feels that someone has acted in his/her interest.
Followers of a servant leader are likely to experience a supportive organizational
climate and tend to share more of what they know with others, than followers
of leaders with other styles of leadership do based on the rule of reciprocity.
Researchers (e.g., Ehrhart, 2004; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010) have
shown that servant leadership is associated with organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB), and have explained this through social exchange theory.
Subordinates under servant leaders are likely to experience satisfaction with their
leaders and to be willing to give something back in exchange for their leader’s
support (Ehrhart, 2004).
In addition, knowledge sharing and servant leadership seem to be associated
with perceptions of trust and justice (e.g., Ardakani, 2012; Bartol & Srivastava,
2002). According to van Dierendonck (2011), a leader with servant leadership
characteristics tends to establish a psychological climate of trust and fairness
among followers, which, in turn, promotes the building of a knowledge-sharing
climate. An individual needs to trust that others will not take advantage of his/
her knowledge-sharing behavior and/or that his/her prosocial behaviors, such as
disseminating knowledge, will be valued by the organization. In line with this,
1752
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
Ardakani (2012) reported a positive relationship between organizational justice
and knowledge-sharing intention in a company, and Schaubroeck, Lam, and Peng
(2011) showed that servant leadership positively influences team performance
via the mediators of cognition- and affect-based trust in leaders.
According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), a servant leader may
function as a norm or a role model for his/her subordinates, and help to promote
knowledge sharing among followers. A leader is expected to model behavior that
is both right and important in the work environment (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson,
Chonko, & Roberts, 2008). A number of researchers (e.g., Reed, Vidaver-Cohen,
& Colwell, 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2010) incorporated social learning theory as
a way of explaining the servant leadership characteristics of selflessness, being
supportive, and displaying developmental behaviors, which subordinates then
learn vicariously through observation.
In sum, a servant leader may positively influence his/her organization’s
performance by establishing a knowledge-sharing climate. Establishing an
organizational climate wherein knowledge sharing is promoted and encouraged
results in members being more likely to convey their knowledge to, and learn
from, others within the organization. Thus, we formulated the following
hypotheses regarding the influence of servant leadership on team performance
through promoting a knowledge-sharing climate:
Hypothesis 1: Servant leadership will have a positive effect on the knowledgesharing climate within an organization.
Hypothesis 2: The knowledge-sharing climate within an organization will
mediate the relationship between servant leadership and team performance.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 2,965 direct sales representatives nested within 77 sales
teams in a cosmetics company in South Korea. We selected this company for our
research because it is representative of similar organizations in South Korea, and
because we were provided with access to the sales team’s financial performance
data. There were 1,979 survey forms returned from 70 direct selling sales
teams; after matching these with sales team data, which were obtained from the
company, 95 survey forms from three teams were discarded as they could not be
reliably matched. Ultimately, 1,884 survey forms from 67 sales teams remained
for analysis.
The survey items were written in English and then translated into Korean
following a back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1980). A pilot survey with 10
employees working in the participating company showed that each item was
clearly understood. With the cooperation of the company, we then randomly
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
1753
distributed hard copy survey packets, which included a cover letter explaining the
study’s purpose, to the target participants. To promote honest responses, on the
first page of the survey form we stipulated that respondents’ answers would only
be used for our research purpose, and assurance of confidentiality was provided.
The mean number of sales representatives nested in direct selling sales teams
was 28.12 (range = 6–66). Most of the respondents were female (99.6%), due to
the norm in South Korea of a high ratio of female employees in the cosmetics
industry. Respondents’ mean education level was 12.18 years (SD = 1.94, range
= 6–22), more than half (51.9%) had an organizational tenure of 5 years or more
(M = 6.14 years, SD = 5.48, range = 0.5–30), and their mean age was 46.8 years
(SD = 7.62; range = 21–76).
Measures
All responses were made on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree
to 7 = strongly agree).
Servant leadership. Servant leadership was assessed using the 14-item Servant
Leadership Scale developed by Ehrhart (2004). Participants’ data were used to
analyze the servant leadership of their immediate supervisors. Sample items
are “My department manager spends time forming quality relationships with
department employees” and “My department manager encourages department
employees to be involved in community service and voluntary activities outside
of work.” The Cronbach’s alpha was .90 in this study.
Knowledge-sharing climate. We used the four-item scale proposed by Faraj
and Sproull (2000) to measure individual perceptions of the extent of knowledge
sharing by team members. Sample items are “People in our team share their
special knowledge and expertise with one another,” and “More knowledgeable
team members freely provide other members with hard-to-find knowledge or
specialized skills.” The Cronbach’s alpha was .93 in this study.
Team performance. Team performance was assessed using the financial data
from the participating cosmetics company. We allowed for a 3-month interval
between survey and the sales data, calculating the quarter-on-quarter growth rate
of 2013 second quarter (Q2) sales divided by 2012 Q2 sales for each team to
create the team performance variable. The use of a sales growth rate neutralized
the absolute differences in teams’ sales volumes.
Control variables. Given the importance of demographic variables in
leadership research (Srivastava et al., 2006), we included the number of team
members and team sales volume for the previous quarter (i.e., 2013 Q1) as
control variables.
Data Aggregation
As individual sales representatives were nested within their sales team, the
assessment scores of individual respondents regarding servant leadership and
1754
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
knowledge-sharing climate were summed for each team, and the mean values
were calculated to measure servant leadership and knowledge-sharing climate
as a group-level variable. Individuals’ responses can be aggregated for use
as a group-level variable if some justification criteria are met (Chan, 1998).
Specifically, to justify the aggregation of servant leadership and knowledgesharing climate measures at the relevant group level, we examined the statistical
evidence for within-group and between-group agreement (Bliese, 2000). Results
demonstrated that the rwg(j), intraclass correlation coefficient 1, and intraclass
correlation coefficient 2 values for servant leadership were .88, .12 (p < .001),
and .80, and those for knowledge-sharing climate were .82, .11 (p < .001), and
.77. Because these values were all above the cut-off values, we determined that
the data aggregation of servant leadership and knowledge-sharing climate was
justified (Bliese, 2000; Klein et al., 2000).
Model Validation
We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to verify that servant leadership
and knowledge-sharing climate were able to be differentiated from each other.
The results indicated a satisfactory model fit (2 = 185.08, df = 39, p < .001;
comparative fit index = .99, Tucker-Lewis index = .98, root mean square error of
approximation = .04). Furthermore, factor loadings of all items included in each
construct were appropriately loaded above 50 (minimum = .63, maximum = .90).
Data Analysis Strategy
We carried out an ordinary least squares hierarchical multiple regression
analysis for hypotheses testing, and followed the method proposed by MacKinnon,
Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002) to verify the mediation effect. To
achieve the optimal balance between statistical power and type I error rates,
the independent variable must be significantly related to the mediator ( ≠ 0).
Furthermore, the mediator must be significantly related to the dependent variable
when the independent variable is being controlled for ( ≠ 0).
Additionally, to confirm the mediation effect, we used a bootstrapping method
to verify directly the significance of the indirect effect. We implemented a
10,000-times repeated sampling process by the percentile method, and presented
a 95% confidence interval result, which is known to provide accurate verification
of the mediation effect (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). As the variance inflation factors
of all variables related to the estimation of regression coefficients were below
10.00, we determined that the possibility of multicollinearity was low (Aiken &
West, 1991). We used STATA version 12.1 for statistical analyses.
1755
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
Results
The means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of, and correlations among,
the study variables are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities of, and Correlations Among, Study Variables
M
1. Team performance
2. Servant leadership
3. Knowledge-sharing climate
4. Previous quarter salesa
5. Number of team members
SD
0.92
4.92
4.91
6.21
55.73
0.12
0.45
0.46
0.45
21.27
1
2
.18
.32**
.35**
.14
.90
.75***
.07
-.01
Note. N = 67. Internal reliabilities are given on the diagonal in italics.
previous quarter’s sales volume. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
a
3
4
.93
.10
.09
.85***
Natural logarithm of the
Model 1 of Table 2 includes the control variables and the independent variable
(i.e., servant leadership) in the regression analysis of knowledge-sharing climate.
As the regression coefficient of servant leadership in Model 1 was significant
(p < .001), we determined that Hypothesis 1 was supported. It is also a stage
one requirement ( ≠ 0) to verify the mediation effect, according to the method
suggested by MacKinnon et al. (2002).
Model 2 of Table 2 represents the regression analysis of team performance, and
was created by simultaneously adding the control, independent, and dependent
(knowledge-sharing climate) variables. Results revealed a significant relationship
(p < .01) between knowledge-sharing climate and team performance when
servant leadership was controlled. It is a stage two requirement ( ≠ 0) to verify
the mediation effect according to the method suggested by MacKinnon et al.
(2002). As the results of stages one and two satisfied the verification conditions
of the mediation effect set out by MacKinnon et al. (2002), we determined that
Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Table 2. Standardized Regression Results for Knowledge-Sharing Climate and Team
Performance
Model 1
(Knowledge-sharing climate)
Control variables
Previous quarter salesa
Team size
Independent variable
Servant leadership (H1)
Mediator
Knowledge-sharing climate (H2)
Model 2
(Team performance)
t
t
-.10
.18
-.65
1.15
.85***
-.63**
4.17
-3.08
9.17
-.23
-1.44
.76***
.47**
2.90
1756
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
Table 2 continued
Model 1
2
R
Adj. R2
F
ΔR2
Model 2
(Knowledge-sharing climate)
.58
.56
28.60***
.57***
(Team performance)
t
t
.32
.27
7.18***
.11*
Note. N = 67. a Natural logarithm of the previous quarter’s sales. * p < .05,
(two-tailed).
**
p < .01,
***
p < .001
The result of the bootstrap-approached indirect effect test also supported the
mediation effect of servant leadership on team performance through knowledgesharing climate. As the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval for the indirect
effect that was bootstrapped 10,000 times did not include zero (lower limit
= .0003, upper limit = .1909), we determined that the mediation effect was
significant. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Discussion
Our results support the proposed hypotheses and show that a knowledge-sharing
climate has a mediating effect on the relationship between servant leadership and
team performance. Servant leadership was found to be significantly associated
with team performance, showing a direct relationship between the antecedent and
outcome variables. Knowledge-sharing climate was also positively associated
with team performance, and mediated the relationship between servant leadership
and team performance. Extending a similar study of empowering leadership by
Srivastava et al. (2006), our findings provide the following unique contributions:
First, to our knowledge, no previous scholars have provided empirical
evidence demonstrating the mediating effect of knowledge-sharing climate in the
relationship between servant leadership and team performance. Rai and Prakash
(2012) proposed a theoretical model depicting the role of servant leadership
in knowledge creation, and in their case study, Oliveira and Ferreira (2012)
also provided qualitative evidence that servant leadership promotes knowledge
sharing. However, in no previous empirical study have researchers provided
quantitative data of this relationship.
Second, we incorporated the variables of team-level knowledge-sharing
climate and team performance in our model. In most studies of servant
leadership, researchers have examined individual-level outcomes, rather than
group- or team-level variables (van Dierendonck, 2011). Whereas Srivastava et
al. (2006) examined management teams in 202 hotel properties, we collected data
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
1757
from 67 sales teams working for a cosmetics company in a metropolitan city, and
an adjacent province in which all sales representatives sell the same products, use
the same promotion tactics, and have access to the same marketing strategies.
To the best of our knowledge, the 67 teams are homogeneous except for the
leadership, sales people, and geographical regions where there is no restriction on
sales activities across regions. Thus, we can presume that our research findings
are relatively free from alternative explanations.
Third, we measured team performance based on objective performance
improvement (the growth rate in quarterly sales revenue) over a 1-year period.
In contrast, Srivastava et al. (2006) computed hotel management teams’
performance based on the focal hotel’s room rate in comparison to that of two
local competitors. There may be a generalizability issue given that our data were
collected from a single organization, but this method effectively allowed us to
single out the leadership effect on team performance.
In terms of practical implications, our findings indicate that organizations may
need to employ leaders who use a servant leadership style in order to create
a knowledge-sharing climate. Such leaders could be hired from outside the
organization or promoted from within. Greenleaf (2003) suggested that a leader
can become a servant leader when he/she tries to serve first as a way to encourage
his/her followers to “become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more
likely themselves to become servants” (Spears, 2003, p. 16). Organizations
should consider incorporating a number of human resources management tactics
(e.g., hiring, promoting, and/or training) to position servant leaders, and should
remove barriers to knowledge sharing as a way to facilitate the development of a
knowledge-sharing climate within their organization. It can be noted that Correia
de Sousa and van Dierendonck (2010) have stated that servant leadership, with
its associated high levels of knowledge management and knowledge sharing, is
more appropriate for knowledge organizations than for other types of firms.
Our study is not free from limitations. First, any application of results from
our research may be restricted to the cosmetics industry, the specific type of
direct sales environment experience of participants in this study, or the particular
sociocultural environment of South Korea. It is, thus, essential to examine
whether or not the finding is applicable to other industries, occupations, and
sociocultural locales. Second, although we devised a time-lag research design
and used data from different sources, common method variance may still exist.
Third, we did not conduct a multilevel analysis to investigate variables of diverse
levels. For example, sales performance can be affected by several dimensions,
from individual-level variables, such as team members’ personalities and
attitudes, to group-level variables that may influence one another. However,
as the purpose of our study was to examine the relationships among servant
1758
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
leadership, knowledge-sharing climate, and sales performance within the
team-level unit of analysis, the primary purpose of our study was accomplished.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ardakani, S. R. (2012). The impact of organizational justice on knowledge sharing intention. Journal
of American Science, 8, 337–340.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barbuto, J., & Wheeler, D. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant
leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300–326. http://doi.org/fb3g7n
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational
reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9, 64–76. http://doi.org/hbn
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bliese, P. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data
aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research,
and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29, 87–111.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. Triandis
& J. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Burlingham, B. (2007). Small giants: Companies that choose to be great instead of big. London,
UK: Penguin.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels
of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246.
http://doi.org/c66fqs
Correia de Sousa, M., & van Dierendonck, D. (2010). Knowledge workers, servant leadership and
the search for meaning in knowledge-driven organizations. On the Horizon, 18, 230–239. http://
doi.org/cggfpx
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94. http://doi.org/c7xj9v
Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management
Science, 46, 1554–1568.
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some
practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6, 23–30. http://doi.org/c7s
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2003). The servant-leader within: A transformative path. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist
Press.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35, 519–530.
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
1759
Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant leadership
themes: A regression model based on items in the organizational leadership assessment.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 98–113.
Klein, K., Bliese, P., Kozolowski, S., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M., Griffin, M., … Bligh, M. (2000).
Multilevel analytical techniques: Commonalities, differences, and continuing questions. In
K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 512–553). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. (2010). Leadership and trust: Their effect on
knowledge sharing and team performance. Management Learning, 41, 473–491. http://doi.org/
cxvnn6
Liden, R., Wayne, S., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a
multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177.
http://doi.org/cbcbz3
Lin, H.-F. (2011). Antecedents of the stage-based knowledge management evolution. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 15, 136–155. http://doi.org/ftstbp
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison
of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7,
83–104. http://doi.org/cxc
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory
focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1220–1233. http://doi.org/b9s3s7
Oliveira, M. A.-Y., & Ferreira, J. J. P. (2012). How interoperability fosters innovation: The case for
servant leadership. African Journal of Business Management, 6, 8580–8608. http://doi.org/7wv
Radaelli, G., Mura, M., Spiller, N., & Lettieri, E. (2011). Intellectual capital and knowledge sharing:
The mediating role of organizational knowledge-sharing climate. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 9, 342–352. http://doi.org/bzgdq2
Rai, R., & Prakash, A. (2012). A relational perspective to knowledge creation: Role of servant
leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 61–85. http://doi.org/7ww
Reed, L. L., Vidaver-Cohen, D., & Colwell, S. R. (2011). A new scale to measure executive servant
leadership: Development, analysis, and implications for research. Journal of Business Ethics, 101,
415–434. http://doi.org/br9w4b
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and affect-based trust as
mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96, 863–871. http://doi.org/fb34f5
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New
procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. http://doi.org/cxg
Spears, L. (2003). Understanding the growing impact of servant-leadership. In R. Greenleaf (Ed.),
The servant-leader within: A transformative path (pp. 13–27). Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams:
Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
1239–1251. http://doi.org/fphhqp
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 304–313.
http://doi.org/bj3bc8
Tombul, F. (2011). The impact of leadership styles and knowledge sharing on police officers’
willingness to exert extra effort to provide better security: A study in the riot unit of the
Turkish national police. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digital.library.unt.edu/
ark:/67531/metadc84290/
1760
SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37,
1228–1261. http://doi.org/c2kdwq
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate,
service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level
investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517–529. http://doi.org/cq8hh6
Yang, J. T. (2004). Job-related knowledge sharing: Comparative case studies. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 8, 118–126. http://doi.org/dxpz5m
Yang, J. T. (2007). Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative
culture. Tourism Management, 28, 530–543. http://doi.org/btpx7s
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of
Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment