University of The Cumberlands Ethical Leadership Discussion

User Generated

Nabalzbhf_1234

Engineering

University of the Cumberlands

Question Description

Can you help me understand this Engineering question?

Discuss what ethical leadership is and how it impacts the organizational culture.

  1. What are the various dimensions of ethical leadership?
  2. Note some failures in ethical leadership, please find an example, explain the failure and note possible solutions to fix the issue with leadership.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

1

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Student Name

Institutional Affiliation

2
Question 1

Ethical leadership is a leadership system where people demonstrate behavior for the mutual
good that is appropriate and acceptable in every part of their lifetime (Phong et al., 2018).

Impacts of ethical leadership in an organizational culture
The development facet of leadership might also nurture an association’s employee’s values
and culture to higher ethical conduct. By showing ethical leadership, we inspire a high degree of
honesty that kindles a sagacity of reliability and motivate subordi...

FnwrzGbc (34809)
Carnegie Mellon University

Anonymous
Awesome! Perfect study aid.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags