ACE Transformational Leadership and Knowledge Sharing Within an Organization Analysis The review articles focus on transformational leadership and knowledg

ACE Transformational Leadership and Knowledge Sharing Within an Organization Analysis The review articles focus on transformational leadership and knowledge and knowledge sharing within an organization, please review these concepts and answer the following questions:

Q1) How do trustworthy and ethical leaders enhance knowledge sharing in organizations?How does this impact the rate of information technology implementations?How does this impact data management within organizations?

Q2) How does servant leadership assist with transferring knowledge in an organization?

Q3) When thinking about data analytics, how does transformational leadership assist with building good data structures?

Requirements

5 pages in length (not including title page, abstract, conclusion and references).
Follow APA Guidelines, attached – Getting Started With APA Style
APA guidelines must be followed, APA 7th ed.The paper must include a cover page, an introduction, a body with fully developed content, and a conclusion
A minimum of five peer-reviewed journal articles.
No plagiarism
The writing should be clear and concise.Headings should be used to transition thoughts.
Articles to be reviewed
(i) LE BA PHONG, LEI HUI, & THAN THANH SON. (2018). How Leadership and Trust in Leaders Foster Employees’ Behavior toward Knowledge Sharing. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 46(5), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6711http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=pbh&AN=129468910&site=eds-live&custid=s8501869&groupid=main&profile=eds_new

(attached – ContentServer (1))

(ii) CHANHOO SONG, KWANGSEO RYAN PARK, & SEUNG-WAN KANG. (2015). Servant Leadership and Team Performance: The Mediating Role of Knowledge-Sharing Climate. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 43(10), 1749–1760.https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.10.1749 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 signi?cant
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
P…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment