Transformational leadership and employee knowledge sharing: Explore the mediating
roles of psychological safety and team efficacy
School of Economics and Management
Beijing Information Science & Technology University
Nanjing Audit University
Odette School of Business
University of Windsor
401 Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9E 4Z4
School of Business
Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China
School of Economics and Management
Beijing Information Science & Technology University
Citation: Yin, J., Ma, Z., Yu, H., Jia, M., & Liao, G. (2019). Transformational leadership and
employee knowledge sharing: Explore the mediating roles of psychological safety and team
efficacy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(2), 150-171.
∗ Corresponding author: Dr. Zhenzhong Ma, firstname.lastname@example.org. This study was partially funded by the grants from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant# 71572027, 71602006, 71801017, & 71802025), a grant from the Beijing Social Science Fund project
(Grant#: 18JDGLB030), a grant from the MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (Grant#:
17YJC630107), and a grant from the Centre for Asia-Pacific Studies, University of Windsor (Grant#: 816058).
Transformational leadership and employee knowledge sharing: Explore the mediating
roles of psychological safety and team efficacy
Purpose – Previous studies have shown that transformational leadership has positive
impact on knowledge sharing. This study is intended to build on past research to
explore the impact of different leadership dimensions of transformational leadership
on knowledge sharing and further to explore the mechanism through which
transformational leadership affects employee knowledge sharing in China.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on the transformational leadership theory
and the team learning theory, it is proposed that all four dimensions of
transformational leadership, including intellectual stimulation, individualized
consideration, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence have unique impact
on employee knowledge sharing. It is further proposed that psychology safety and
team efficacy mediate these relationships. Then we collected data from over 400
employees from knowledge-based companies in China to empirically test the
proposed relationships with the method of structural equation modeling.
Findings – The results show that psychological safety fully mediated the impact of
intellectual stimulation on knowledge sharing, and team efficacy fully mediated the
impact of inspirational motivation on knowledge sharing. Both factors also mediated
the impact of individualized consideration on knowledge sharing. The results thus
provide empirical support for the impact of transformational leadership on employee
knowledge sharing in an international context.
Value – The past years have seen increasing interest in leadership and knowledge
sharing in emerging markets, yet the mechanism through which leadership affects
employee knowledge sharing remains under studied. This study explores the impact
of different dimensions of transformational leadership on employee knowledge
sharing, and further shows that psychological safety and team efficacy mediate these
relationships in a collectivistic society where knowledge sharing is consistent with
cultural norms. The findings help develop more robust knowledge sharing theories in
the international context and provide insightful suggestions for management
practitioners in emerging markets.
Keywords: China, knowledge sharing, psychological safety, team efficacy,
Knowledge and intellectual capital have become increasingly important in the era of knowledge
economy (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002; Del Giudice and Maggioni, 2014; du Plessis, 2007; Li,
Shang, Liu, and Xi, 2014; Ma and Yu, 2010; Ma and Tang, 2018; Nonaka, 1994; Tohidinia and
Mosakhani, 2010), and knowledge management capability has thus become the most critical
measure of an organization’s sustainable competitive advantage (Lin, Wu, and Lu, 2012; Ma,
Huang, Wu, Dong, and Qi, 2014; Ma and Yu, 2010; Nonaka, 1994). Research has examined and
identified important knowledge management activities, and knowledge sharing as one of the key
factors has proven to play an important role in determining an organization’s knowledge
management abilities and further its effectiveness (Alavi and Leidner 2001; Lin et al., 2012; Ma,
et al., 2014). However, knowledge sharing is often very difficult (Nonaka, 1994; Ruggles, 1998)
because knowledge is usually considered a valuable source of competitiveness and individuals
are often reluctant to share their knowledge (Lin et al., 2012; Ma and Tang, 2018; Ma et al., 2014;
In response to the challenges in knowledge sharing, knowledge management research has
focused on identifying critical antecedents of knowledge sharing (Berraies and El Abidine,
2019；Cummings, 2004; deVries, Hoof, and Ridder, 2006; Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams, and
Neale, 1996; Kurt, Birgit, Muller, Herting, and Mooradian, 2008; Le and Lei, 2019; Lin et al.,
2012; Park, Lee and Lee, 2015; Siemsen, Roth, and Balasubramanian, 2009; Stasser, Vaughan,
and Stewart, 2000), and a growing number of studies have turned their attentions to the impact of
leadership on knowledge sharing (Berraies and El Abidine, 2019；Bryant, 2003; Connelly and
Kelloway, 2003; Le and Lei, 2019; Li et al., 2014; Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011; Qian et al.,
2019; Shariq, Mukhtar, and Anwar, 2019; Srivastava, Bartol, and Locke, 2006; Wong, Tjosvold,
and Lu, 2010; Xue, Bradley, and Liang, 2011; Yang, 2007, 2010), in particular the impact of
transformational leadership on knowledge sharing (Berraies and El Abidine, 2019；Bryant, 2003;
Li et al., 2014; Liu and DeFrank, 2013; Lorinkova and Perry, 2019; Shih, Chiang, and Chen,
2012; Xiao, Zhang, and Ordóñez de Pablos, 2017). For instance, research has already shown that
transformational leadership can facilitate knowledge sharing and individual learning within
organizations (Berraies and El Abidine, 2019；Le and Hui, 2019; Li et al., 2014; Wong et al.,
2010; Xiao et al., 2017). However, while research on knowledge management has provided
evidence for a positive relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing
(Berraies and El Abidine, 2019；Bryant, 2003; Li et al., 2014; Liu and DeFrank, 2013; Shih et al.,
2012), contemporary research on transformational leadership and knowledge sharing has largely
treated transformational leadership as a broad concept, rather than as a multi-dimensional
construct (Gowen, Henagan, and McFadden, 2009; Li et al, 2014; Wong et al., 2010), and thus
failed to consider the unique impact of different dimensions of transformational leadership on
employee knowledge sharing and our understanding on why transformational leadership affect
knowledge sharing is not adequate. Furthermore, research on transformational leadership has
rarely considered the mediating factors in the process of knowledge sharing and thus the
mechanism on how transformational leadership affects knowledge sharing has also remained
unclear (Le and Hui, 2019; Li et al., 2014; Qian et al., 2019; Xiao et al., 2017).
In addition, the increasingly globalized world economy has underlined the importance of
cultural diversity in today’s workforces and further its influence on knowledge management.
With more national economies opened to and integrated with the global market, people with
different cultural values have often come together to work as heterogeneous groups such as in
multinationals. It is thus important to explore knowledge management and its impact on
organization performance in a variety of cultural contexts. However, there is a paucity in current
literature on the impact of transformational leadership and knowledge management practice in
the international context (Ma et al., 2014), and it is less clear on how people share their
knowledge in different cultural contexts (Le and Hui, 2019; Ma and Tang, 2018; Yang, 2010).
To help bridge this gap in knowledge management research, our study is intended to adopt
the transformational leadership framework (Bass, 1999) and the team learning theory
(Edmondson, 1999) to examine the link between the four unique dimensions of transformational
leadership and knowledge sharing with the focus on the mechanism through which these four
dimensions affect knowledge sharing. Specifically, we propose that every dimension of
transformational leadership has unique influence on employee knowledge sharing, and this
influence is further mediated by employee’s perceived psychological safety and team efficacy
(Wong et al., 2010) because research has shown that psychological safety and team efficacy
encourages individuals’ open sharing of knowledge and reflection of experiences (Chen et al.,
2012; Wong et al., 2010).
This study will also attempt to explore the relationship between transformational leadership
and knowledge sharing in an international context with the data from China, one of the most
important emerging markets. China is a powerful test of the universality aspiration of the
knowledge management theories developed in the West, in particular of their utility in
understanding the conditions and dynamics through which transformational leadership affects
employee knowledge sharing (Ma, Qi, Wang, 2008), because the Chinese are highly
collectivistic (Hofstede, 2001), and they are more likely to place group interests and collective
good above individual benefits. Therefore, it may be the case that Chinese employees are more
likely to share their knowledge with their colleagues while less likely to worry about losing their
superiority and ownership of the knowledge caused by knowledge sharing, different from the
West where individual interests are of upmost importance and thus one’s own benefits from
proprietary knowledge are more important than organizational benefits from knowledge sharing
(Yang, 2010). However, relatively few studies have examined the relationship between
transformational leadership and knowledge sharing in China (Ma et al., 2014).
The findings of this study will be able to provide a more integrated theoretical model to
examine the impact of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing. This study can help
bridge current research gap by exploring the impact of different leadership dimensions of
transformational leadership on employee knowledge sharing, which helps answer the question on
what leadership elements facilitate knowledge sharing in order to design better intervention
programs. This study also explores the mediating effect of psychological safety and team
efficacy on the impact of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing, which helps answer
the question on how transformational leaders affect employee knowledge sharing. In addition,
this study examines knowledge sharing in the context of China. Therefore, the results can also
enrich our understanding of knowledge management in the international context and offer
insightful suggestions to knowledge management practitioners and international managers,
which is crucially important for the globalized world market.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Knowledge sharing is often defined as “a social interaction culture, involving the exchange of
employee knowledge, experiences, and skills through the whole department or organization”
(Lin, 2007, p. 315; Ma and Yu, 2010). Having knowledge shared with the right people at the
right time is critical in building and sustaining an organization’s competitiveness (Gowen et al.,
2009; Ma et al., 2014). It has been suggested that knowledge sharing within an organization
provides an opportunity for mutual learning, facilitating the creation of new knowledge, and
enhancing the organization’s ability to generate new ideas (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002’ Kessel,
Kratzer and Schultz, 2012; Ma et al., 2014; Ma and Tang, 2018; Nonaka, 1994; Tsai and
Ghoshal, 1998). Successful exchange of knowledge can help organizations develop a knowledge
base for generating new solutions, new approaches, or new products (Ma and Tang, 2018;
Nonaka, 1994). Therefore, knowledge sharing is a fundamental process through which
organizational members can contribute to organizational success (Kankanhalli, Tan and Wei,
2005; Park et al., 2015).
However, despite the importance of knowledge sharing to an organization’s success, the
“unwillingness to share knowledge” attitudes, intentions, and behaviors often found among
employees have posed great challenges in knowledge sharing: employees often feel insecure in
knowledge sharing (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002; Ma et al., 2014; Park et al., 2015). Employees
are fearful of the loss of superiority and knowledge ownership after sharing their knowledge
(Bartol and Srivastava, 2002; Yang, 2010). In addition, employees are also anxious of being
despised or rejected by their supervisors and colleagues if they share their bad experiences,
mistakes or failures, wherein they may face the risk of being looked down or separated by
supervisors and colleagues, even being laid off (Cameron, 2002; Yang, 2010). As a result, a
better understanding of knowledge sharing in order to design effective incentives and creating
right policies for employees to share more knowledge has received increased interests from
organization scholars and knowledge management practitioners.
The impact of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing
Transformational leadership, one of the key leadership styles in the management practice, has
proven to have a positive impact on followers’ attitudes, behaviors and individual developments
(Bass, 1985; Berraies and El Abidine, 2019；Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir, 2002). Various
researchers have suggested that the transformational leadership theory has greatly broadened
today’s leadership research (Jung, Chow and Wu, 2003; Mittal and Dhar, 2015). According to
the transformational leadership theory, transformational leadership consists of four unique
dimensions, namely idealized influence (or charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration (Avolio, Bass, and Jung, 1999; Bass, 1999;
Nemanich and Keller, 2007; Shao and Webber, 2006). Within this framework, idealized
influence refers to the characteristic demonstrated by a transformational leader who tries to serve
as a role model for followers who consequently respect and trust the leader and attempt to
emulate the leader’s behaviors. Inspirational motivation suggests that a leader inspires followers
by articulating visions that are appealing to them and then motivates them to embrace and
achieve these visions. These two dimensions reflect the charismatic features of a
transformational leader. Intellectual stimulation shows that a leader encourages followers to
challenge existent norms and take risks by addressing problems in a novel way (Hu et al., 2012).
Individualized consideration refers to the process by which a leader motivates followers by
paying close attention to followers’ needs and listening to their concerns to help them develop
and grow (Hoffman, Bynum, Piccolo, and Sutton, 2011). By engaging in these transformational
leadership behaviors, a leader can transform followers’ attitudes and behaviors, foster a value for
change, thereby promote changes and augment the followers’ professional growth (Carmeli,
Sheaffer, Binyamin, Reiter-Palmon and Shimoni, 2014).
Employees are usually unwilling to share knowledge with others without strong motivation
since they perceive their personal knowledge as a source of advantage and power (Boer, Berends,
and Baalen, 2011; Li, Shang, Liu and Xi, 2014; Ma et al., 2014). Scholars in the knowledge
management field have examined a lot of factors that could possible influence knowledge
sharing in organizations, among which transformational leadership is found to play an important
role in promoting knowledge sharing through inspiring employees’ motivations (Bryant, 2003;
Li et al., 2014). Consistent with the findings in previous studies (Berraies and El Abidine, 2019；
Le and Lei, 2019; Shariq et al., 2019), it is expected in this study that transformational leadership
can encourage knowledge sharing because a transformational leader can transform followers’
attitudes and behaviors and foster a value for change (Carmeli et al., 2014). With a new vision or
an idea of change for a better future in mind, followers are more willing to take on a
transformational leader’s call to share their knowledge with other group members so that they
can work together to change the status quo and further to achieve a better future for the
organization and for every individual member.
While many studies have found a positive relationship between transformational leadership
and employee knowledge sharing (Berraies and El Abidine, 2019；Gowen et al., 2009; Le and
Lei, 2019; Li et al., 2014; Liu and DeFrank, 2013; Shariq et al., 2019; Shih et al., 2012;), these
studies have largely considered transformational leadership as a broad concept and failed to
differentiate the unique influence of each transformational leadership dimension on employee
knowledge sharing. Treating transformational leadership as a four-dimensional construct rather
than a broad concept could provide a more nuance understanding on the impact of leadership on
knowledge sharing (Xiao et al., 2017), and thus the transformational leadership theory provides a
solid foundation to explore the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge
sharing. It is argued in this study that the four dimensions of transformational leadership each
induces employee knowledge sharing. The first dimension of transformational leadership,
idealized influence, suggests that leaders are considered most ethical, respectful, trustable, and
admirable, which thus can have great personal influence on employees (Bass, 1999; Bass et al.,
2003). Leaders who are perceived to possess the characteristic of idealized influence always have
more attraction to their followers as role models so that their followers are willing to take on
risk-taking job activities and sacrifice their own interests for the collective good (Birasnav,
Rangnekar, and Dalpati, 2011; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter, 1990; van
Knippenberg and van Knippenberg, 2005), which is even more prominent in China where the
collective good is often more important than individual interests. Therefore, it is expected that
the idealized influence dimension of transformational leadership can lead employees to identify
with their leaders and organizations, become more willing to cooperate with their colleagues for
a common goal and feel that their own interests will not be harmed by sharing knowledge with
their colleagues, and consequently generate a sense of group belongingness and cohesion (Shih,
et al., 2012; Podsakoff et al., 1990; van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg, 2005). Pushed by the
motivation of cooperating with colleagues for a common goal, by the belief that a leader and
colleagues are worth trusting, and with the sense of group belongingness, employees are more
willing to share their knowledge with others. Therefore, it is proposed that
Hypothesis 1a: The dimension of idealized influence is positively related to
employee knowledge sharing in China.
The second dimension of transformational leadership, inspirational motivation, describes
how leaders motivate employees to perform beyond expectations through articulating and
shaping a common compelling vision (Bass 1985; Bass et al., 2003). When employees share a
common vision, they recognize that any assistance they offer to their colleagues in helping them
with jobs would also contribute to the achievement of their shared goals (Shih et al., 2012).
Furthermore, leaders possessing the characteristic of inspirational motivation can successfully
transform the focus of their followers from self-interests to an integral collective concern and
inspire them to perform beyond their duties and engage in altruistic behaviors (e.g., helping their
coworkers) (Rubin, Munz, and Bommer, 2005). It is noted that knowledge sharing is voluntary
and unlikely to take place without proper motivation (Ipe, 2003). However, under the influence
of a shared vision, it is expected that the followers under the influence of inspirational motivation
are more willing to share their personal knowledge with others. And sharing knowledge would
no longer be an optional but an obligatory behavior to achieve the commonly set vision, a
common behavior in collectivistic cultures such as in China (Ohana and Meyer, 2010). Therefore,
it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1b: The dimension of inspirational motivation is positively related to
employee knowledge sharing in China.
The third dimension of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation, explains how
transformational leaders promote their employees’ innovative and creative skills by solving
problems in an entirely new way without criticizing employees for mistakes (Bass, 1999; Bass et
al., 2003; Birasnav et al., 2012). Leaders who intellectually stimulate employees often encourage
them to solve problems in a unique way and drive them to challenge traditional beliefs and
values (Birasnav et al., 2012). When employees are permitted to view things from different
perspectives and solve problems without worrying about making mistakes, they tend to value the
opinions of their colleagues and express their own opinions freely (Shih et al., 2012; Amabile,
Conti, Coon, Hazenby, and Herron, 1996). Accordingly, they are more likely to interact and
share their knowledge with their coworkers, particularly when they share a common goal such as
in the Chinese society. Therefore, it is expected that
Hypothesis 1c: The dimension of intellectual stimulation is positively related to
employee knowledge sharing in China.
The fourth dimension of transformational leadership, individualized consideration,
emphasizes a leader’s mentor role in developing employees’ potential (Bass, 1999; Bass et al.,
2003; Birasnav et al., 2012). This dimension focuses on listening to and satisfying
employees’ individualized needs such as achievement, personal growth, and learning
opportunities. Through individual consideration, transformational leaders promote high
interpersonal relationships among employees to avoid any conflict and create a friendly and
comfortable work atmosphere (Nemanich and Keller, 2007). According to the social exchange
theory, people tend to give back similar treatment they receive from others (Coyle-Shapiro and
Conway, 2005). When the followers receive individualized considerations from their leader, they
will try to return such benevolence by exerting more efforts, which is even more so in the
Chinese society where leaders are often considered as a father-figure who takes care of all
employees and all employees are expected to reciprocate with all efforts devoted to the common
goal. Therefore, it is expected that the followers of transformational leaders possessing the
characteristic of individualized consideration are more willing to share their knowledge with
others (Shih et al., 2012; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, and Werner, 1998), and it is hypothesized
Hypothesis 1d: The dimension of individualized consideration is positively related
to employee knowledge sharing in China.
The impact of psychological safety and team efficacy on knowledge sharing
The team learning theory contends that team psychological safety and team efficacy are the two
key factors that facilitate team learning behaviors such as knowledge sharing and knowledge
management activities (Edmondson, 1999). According to this theory, employees are more likely
to share knowledge with their colleagues if they believe that the working environment is secure
(not being rejected or embarrassed by others) and their standings are not threatened when
knowledge is shared (colleagues are not competitive and they are willing to help each other)
(Edmondson, 1999); or if they believe that their colleagues are capable of using their shared
knowledge to perform the collective task successfully (Kessel et al., 2012). As more
organizations begin to employ knowledge sharing to facilitate organizational learning as basic
building blocks of their business operations and strategic executions (Jung and Sosik, 2002), it is
important to explore the impact of psychological safety and team efficacy on employee
knowledge sharing. In this study, psychological safety and team efficacy are complementary
individual perceptions of work team, one pertaining to interpersonal threat and the other focusing
on team’s potential to perform (Edmondson, 1999).
Psychological safety describes a perception that ‘people are comfortable being themselves’
(Edmondson, 1999, p. 354) and ‘feel able to show and employ one’s self without fear of negative
consequences to self-image, status or career’ (Kahn, 1990, p. 708). Organizational research has
identified psychological safety as an important factor in understanding how people collaborate to
achieve a shared outcome (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson and Lei, 2014), making it a critical
concept for explaining employee collaborative behaviors such as knowledge sharing. Given that
the main reason why employees are unwilling to share knowledge is their feelings of insecurity,
past studies have examined this factor and consistently shown that psychological safety has a
positive influence on employee knowledge sharing (Kessel et al., 2012; Siemsen et al., 2009;
Zhang, Fang, Wei, and Chen, 2010), therefore, it is expected that psychological safety is also an
important factor in promoting knowledge sharing in China.
Hypothesis 2: Psychological safety is positively related to employee knowledge
sharing in China.
Team efficacy, also called collective efficacy, refers to team members’ confidence that they
can collectively and successful perform or achieve a particular task or goal (Bandura, 1997;
Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, and Zazanis, 1995). Bandura (1986, p. 449), in his introduction of the
term, noted that “perceived collective efficacy will influence what people choose to do as a
group, how much effort they put into it, and their staying power when group efforts fail to
produce results”. Moreover, it has been found that groups with a high level of team efficacy have
a strong belief in the group's ability to performance its major tasks, and to overcome barriers to
performance (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, and Shea, 1993). Guzzo and Shea (1992) have shown that
team efficacy is the key mediating variable linking the structural characteristics of groups and
their effectiveness. Thus, it is expected that employees with a high level of team efficacy are
more likely to share knowledge with others because they believe that their team is competent to
use their shared knowledge to complete the collective task successfully (Edmondson, 1999). In
this study, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3: Team efficacy is positively related to employee knowledge sharing in
The mediating role of psychological safety and team efficacy
While it is important to know that transformational leaders can motivate employees to share
knowledge among organizational members in order to achieve organizational success, it is even
more important to understand the mechanism through which transformational leaders facilitate
knowledge sharing in order to create more effective intervention policies and training programs.
The social information process (SIP) theory suggests that social cues provided by the significant
others (e.g., team leader or heavyweight teammates) will influence one’s perception of the
working environment and subsequent behaviors (Zhou and Pan, 2015). Given transformational
leaders’ pivotal role in shaping the working environment, transformational leadership is expected
to influence employee behaviors including knowledge sharing behaviors via its impact on
employees’ perceptions of the working environment, such as psychological safety and team
efficacy., In the following sections, we will explore how the four dimensions of transformational
leadership can affect employees’ perceptions of psychological safety and team efficacy
respectively, which further affect employee knowledge sharing.
The impact of idealized influence on psychological safety
As discussed above, idealized influence emphasizes that transformational leaders have the power
and influence to make their followers accept them as their role models (Mittal and Dhar, 2015).
Generally speaking, leaders with idealized influence tend to have high moral standards and
adhere to an ethical code of conduct, such as treating followers equally, encouraging followers to
collaborate and sacrificing their own self-interests for collective interests. They send a signal to
followers that the working environment is cooperative rather than competitive (Zhou and Pan,
2015). Therefore, mutual support and trust among employees are fostered within the team, and
employees feel their interests will never be harmed by other team members, leading a high level
of psychological safety. Schaubroeck, Lam and Peng (2011) showed that leaders who are
capable of instilling trust among followers help prompt conditions in which members feel
comfortable to express their opinions and share their knowledge. In other words, idealized
influence can improve employees’ feeling of safety to promote knowledge sharing and opinion
expression. Consequently, it is expected that
Hypothesis 4: Psychological safety meditates the relationship between idealized
influence and employee knowledge sharing in China.
The impact of inspirational motivation on team efficacy
Inspirational motivation suggests that transformational leaders can arouse strong motivation in
their followers. Leaders with inspirational motivation are good at linking their followers’ work
roles to a compelling vision of the organization, motivating the followers to view their work as
more meaningful and significant and thus increasing their intrinsic motivating potential to exceed
the expectation (Bono and Judge, 2003; Zhu, Avolio, and Walumbwa, 2009). Avolio, Kahai,
Dumdum, and Sivasubramaniam (2001) argued that inspirational leaders can influence team
members’ perceptions of ability, benevolence, integrity, and information exchange by
highlighting the importance of cooperation in performing collective tasks. Inspirational
motivation can also lead the followers to accept the notion that higher performance, cooperation,
and collective good are important in their group (Li et al., 2014). By emphasizing group mission,
stressing shared values, connecting individual interests with the group ones, transformational
leaders provide the followers with more opportunities to interact with each other and to
appreciate team achievements and other team members’ contributions, resulting in a high level of
perceived team efficacy, which leaders to more knowledge sharing (Kark and Shamir, 2002;
Walumbwa, Wang, Lawler, and Shi, 2004). Therefore, it is proposed that.
Hypothesis 5: Team efficacy meditates the relationship between inspirational
motivation and employee knowledge sharing in China.
The impact of intellectual stimulation on psychological safety and team efficacy
Intellectual stimulation stresses that transformational leaders motivate their followers to take
risks, to challenge the statue quo, and to view problems from multiple perspectives (Shih et al.,
2012; Shin and Eom, 2014). Transformational leaders demonstrating intellectual stimulation
encourage their followers to question assumptions and to think and work in an innovative way
(Shin and Eom, 2014; Zhang, Tsui and Wang, 2011). Intellectual simulation sends a clear
message to the followers that the working environment is safe to be different, and it is
legitimate and even encouraged to express their thoughts, opinions and ideas openly without
fear of negative interpersonal consequence such as being rejected, despised, embarrassed, or
losing competitiveness. Therefore, employees’ perceptions of psychological safety are
prompted under the leadership of such leaders. In addition, when employees view things from
different perspectives, they tend to value the opinions of their colleagues with less biases.
Meanwhile, a safe working environment provides employees with more opportunities to
communicate and interact with each, thus enhancing the possibilities that employees regard
their colleagues as capable and thus are more likely to share the knowledge. Hence, it is
expected that both psychological safety and team efficacy will mediate the relationship between
intellectually stimulation and employee knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 6: Psychological safety and team efficacy meditate the relationship
between intellectual stimulation and employee knowledge sharing in China
The impact of individualized consideration on psychological safety and team efficacy
Individualized consideration suggests that transformational leaders attend to followers’ needs
and treat them uniquely (Shih et al., 2012; Zhou and Pan, 2015). Leaders demonstrating
individualized consideration hold such an opinion that employees must be cared for one-on-one
rather than via formal policies since each of them has unique strengths, interests, and needs
(Bass and Avolio, 1990; Detert and Burris, 2007). Individualized consideration embodies
leaders’ personal support and respect to their followers which are more likely to prompt the
followers’ trust in and identification with the leaders. These affections or feelings make the
followers aware that there is little personal risk in honest communication (Bass and Riggio,
2006; Edmondson, 2003), which can enhance followers’ perceptions of psychological safety. At
the same time, the followers will emulate individualized consideration demonstrated by
transformational leaders and learn to respect individual differences of each other which will
contribute to a working environment characterized by low levels of risk in taking initiatives
(Zhou and Pan, 2015). Besides, through individualized consideration, transformational leaders
can help their followers recognize their capabilities, and then elevate their performance to a
higher level (Shamir, House, and Arthur, 1993; Walumbwa et al., 2004), which strengthens
followers’ perceptions of team efficacy. Furthermore, by serving as mentors, transformational
leaders also help followers understand the perspectives and behaviors of others, which, in turn,
enable followers to interact with each other more smoothly and care more about others’
contribution (Ayoko and Chua, 2014; Zhang, Cao, and Tjosvold, 2011), leading to more
knowledge sharing. It is thus expected that
Hypothesis 7: Psychological safety and team efficacy meditate the relationship
between individualized consideration and employee knowledge sharing in China.
The overall research model of this study is displayed in Figure 1 wherein each of the
transformational leadership dimensions positively affects employee knowledge sharing, and
these relationships are further mediated by psychological safety and team efficacy.
Insert Figure 1 about here
Sample and procedures
Using a web-based survey, we collected data from employees who conducted knowledge-based
work in mainland China. The link to the survey was sent to friends and colleagues in different
universities and then forwarded to their connected companies with knowledge employees. The
questionnaire was anonymous to ensure respondents to answer the question as honestly as
possible and we received 501 completed surveys after six months. After removing the
questionnaires with incomplete information or invalid data, there were 421 valid questionnaires
used in this study. Among all the respondents included in this study, 48% of the respondents
were females, and the majority of the respondents was between 25 and 35 years old. 4% of the
respondents held a high school diploma or equivalent, 53.7% held a bachelor’s degree, and
31.4% held a post-graduate degree, with the remainder of the participants with a PhD degree.
32% the respondents has been working for over fifteen years, with the average work
experiences at 3.5 years (please also refer to Table 1).
All scales used in this study were in Chinese Mandarin. The scales developed in previous
studies were adapted and adopted in this study after they were translated into Chinese using the
translation and back-translation procedure, whereby they were first translated into Chinese from
English and then back into English to ensure equivalency of meaning, following the commonly
prescribed procedures (Brislin, 1980). Necessary revision was also made to ensure the scales
were consistent with the Chinese context. All participants answered the questions on a series of
5-point Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree.
Transformational leadership The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form
5X-Short (Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson, 2003) were used in this study to measure
transformational leadership. The scale had twenty items in total to estimate four dimensions of
transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration. Sample items include “My team leader goes
beyond self-interest for the good of the group”, “My team leader talks optimistically about the
future”, “My team leader spends time teaching and coaching me”, and “My team leader seeks
differing perspectives when solving problems”, respectively. The resulting Cronbach alpha for
the four dimensions was 0.92, 0.88, 0.90, and 0.88, respectively, all above the minimum
Psychological safety Using the items from Edmondson’s (1999) psychological safety scale,
and with a factor analysis, a seven-item scale was developed to assess psychological safety in
this study. Examples of seven items that make up the measure are: “It is safe to take a risk on
my team” and “No one on my team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts”.
The Cronbach alpha for this measure was 0.82.
Team efficacy We used the three-item scale of team efficacy from Edmondson (1999) and
made minor revision to make it more suitable for individual responses. Example items of the
three-item measure include “My team can achieve its task without requiring us to put in
unreasonable time or effort”, and “With focus and effort, my team can do anything we set out to
accomplish”. The Cronbach alpha for this measure was 0.73.
Employee knowledge sharing We adopted three items from the knowledge sharing measure
developed by Cheng and Li (2001), which has also proved to have high reliability in Chinese
samples. The items were to assess three aspects of knowledge sharing: sharing individual
knowledge, sharing learning opportunities, and encouraging others to learn. Sample items
include “Offering suggestions when discussing matters with colleagues”, “Being willing to talk
about knowledge and experience with colleagues”. The Cronbach alpha for this measure was
Control Variables. Employee age, education level, gender, and working experience are
found to have potential influences on knowledge sharing, as prior research suggested (Felin and
Hesterly, 2007; Zhang et al., 2010). In order to explore the true impact of transformational
leadership on knowledge sharing, the impact of these variables was controlled for in this study.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Basic descriptive statistical testing and correlation analysis were conducted with SPSS 20.0.,
and then we used AMOS 20.0 as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003) to assess the convergent
and discriminant validity of the constructs examined in this study. To test the proposed
hypotheses and the mediating roles of psychological safety and team efficacy, we used MPlus
7.0 for the multiple regression analyses because it can help investigate the relationships
between a set of independent and dependent variables in one single regression analysis (Muthén
and Muthén, 2012). We also followed the methods recommended by MacKinnon, Lockwood,
Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002), to use Mplus 7.0 to test the mediation hypothesis by
examining the significance of indirect effects. Finally, in order to avoid the problem that the
coefficient product test violates the distribution assumption, we used the bootstrapping method
to improve the statistical validity of the test (Grant and Berry, 2011), that is, to repeatedly
extract 5000 a*b values from the original data and then estimate the unbiased interval of these
Table 1 showed the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables. The
results indicate that there was a close correlation between the variables.
Insert Table 1 about here
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed to assess the convergent and discriminant
validity of the constructs examined in this study. Using AMOS 20.0, we tested whether the
seven-factor model is a good fit with our data and the results show that the seven-factor model
has the best fit which supports the hypothesized research model (χ2/df=2.03, CFI=0.95,
NFI=0.90, IFI=0.95, GFI=0.88, RMSEA=0.049 as in Table 2) when compared with all other
alternative models, as shown in Table 2.
Insert Table 2 about here
We further tested the convergent validity of all the variables by assessing their factor
loadings which should be significant and exceed 0.5 (Straub, 1989), composite reliabilities (CR)
which should exceed 0.6 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988), and the average variance extracted (AVE)
that should be more than 0.5 for all variables (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The results showed
that all the factor loadings and composite reliabilities fell in the acceptable ranges and were
significant at the 0.01 level. Factor loadings ranged from 0.56 to 0.86 and all composite
reliabilities were above 0.7. Moreover, the AVE values were all above 0.5, again above the
Therefore, the preparatory tests indicate that the scales of transformational leadership,
psychological safety, team efficacy and knowledge sharing possessed adequate convergent and
discriminant validity in our Chinese sample for use in hypothesis testing.
To test the hypotheses developed in this study, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted
with the effect of the control variables including age, gender, level of education, and working
experience controlled for. As shown in Table 3, with the four dimensions of transformational
leadership as independent variables and knowledge sharing as dependent variables, all four
dimensions of transformational leadership were positively related to employee knowledge
sharing (β = 0.35, p <0.01; β = 0.34, p <0.01; β = 0.37, p <0.01; β = 0.32, p <0.01, respectively;
Model 1 in Table 3), which supports H1a, H1b, H1c, and H1d. When using psychological
safety and team efficacy as independent variables respectively, the results again show that they
were also positively related to knowledge sharing in China (β = 0.47, p <0.001; β = 0.45, p
<0.001 in Model 2 and Model 3; β = 0.20, p <0.01; β = 0.23, p <0.01 in Model 6), which
supports H2 and H3.
The results also showed that intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration were
positively related to psychological safety (β = 0.19. p <0.01; β = 0.20, p <0.01, respectively;
Model 4). When team efficacy was the dependent variable, the results showed that inspirational
motivation and individualized consideration were positively related to team efficacy (β = 0.21,
p <0.01; β = 0.17, p <0.05, respectively, Model 5). Moreover, the results indicated that the
significant relationships between the four dimensions of transformational leadership and
knowledge sharing became non-significant when psychological safety and team efficacy were
entered the equation. Combining significances of indirect effects together, the indirect effect
values of psychological safety and team efficacy between individualized consideration and
knowledge sharing were 0.041 and 0.040, respectively, and 95% confidence intervals were
(0.006, 0.096) and (0.010, 0.094), respectively, excluding zero. These suggested that
psychological safety and team efficacy fully mediated the relationship between individualized
consideration and knowledge sharing, which supported H7.
Insert Table 3 about here
The indirect effect of team efficacy between inspirational motivation and knowledge
sharing was 0.049, and the 95% confidence interval was (0.015, 0.112), not including zero,
which again suggested that team efficacy fully mediated the relationship between inspirational
motivation and employee knowledge sharing, and inspirational motivation was positively
related to employee knowledge sharing. H5 were thus supported. The indirect effect of
psychological safety between intellectual stimulation and knowledge sharing was 0.402, and
95% confidence interval was (0.006, 0.101), excluding zero. However, the mediation results of
team efficacy are not significant, so it partially supported H6 in that psychological safety, not
team efficacy, played a mediating role between intellectual stimulation and employee
knowledge sharing. It is probably because intellectual stimulation sends a clear message to
employees that the working environment is safe to express themselves, which promote their
psychological safety. But the improvement of team efficacy is mainly based on the perception
of the actual team capability, rather than on the perceived capability from intellectual
stimulation. In addition, idealized influence was not significant related to psychological safety,
which means that H4 were not supported. One of possible reasons is that it is difficult for
idealized influence to have a positive impact on psychological safety alone, idealized influence
and inspirational motivation usually form a combined factor of charismatic-inspirational
leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1993). In other words, only when other factors of transformational
leadership work together with idealized influence, idealized influence can have a positive
impact when putting into action. The final research model based on the analyses was presented
in Figure 2.
Insert Table 4 & Figure 2 about here
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
Knowledge sharing is very important to a firm’s competitive advantage (Shih et al., 2012), but
employees do not share their knowledge automatically, and organizational leaders play a
critical role in making it happen in knowledge management (Srivastava et al., 2006). Previous
studies have supported a positive relationship between transformational leadership and
employee knowledge sharing, but the impact of each specific dimensions of transformational
leadership and the mechanism through which these dimensions affect knowledge sharing are
less clear, and knowledge sharing in the international context also receive relatively little
attention. This study attempts to bridge this research gap by exploring the mechanisms through
which each transformational leadership dimension influences knowledge sharing and by
developing a theoretical model to explain this process in the Chinese context, a highly
collectivistic society where knowledge sharing is consistent with the dominant values, to serve
for the organizational collective good rather than individual interests. Empirical data were
collected from knowledge employees of Chinese companies. The results supported the
proposed research model and thus provided a clearer picture on transformational leadership and
knowledge sharing as well as the mediating effect of psychological safety and team efficacy in
an important cultural context. Our study will have important theoretical and managerial
This study has several theoretical implications and can make important contributions to the
literature on transformational leadership and knowledge sharing. First, our study complements
the existing literature on leadership and knowledge sharing. Although past studies have found a
positive relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing (Chen and
Barnes, 2006; García-Morales, Lloréns-Montes, and Verdú-Jover, 2008; Le and Lei, 2019; Liu
and DeFrank, 2013; Shariq et al., 2019; Shih et al., 2012), almost none of them have considered
transformational leadership as a four-dimensional composite variable and further distinguished
the impact of each dimension in examining the impact of transformational leadership on
knowledge sharing. In this study, we systematically analyzed and developed the relationships
between each of the four dimensions of transformational leadership and knowledge sharing, and
the results support our hypotheses. The findings of this study can thus improve our
understanding about transformational leadership and knowledge sharing in a more nuance way.
Second, our study explores the mechanisms through which transformational leadership
influences knowledge sharing. Past studies have highlighted the need to consider intervening
conditions and possible process variables affecting the relationship between transformational
leadership and management practices, including self-interest (Liu and DeFrank, 2013), LMX
(Li et al., 2014), group climates (including affiliation climate, innovativeness climate and
fairness climate (Li et al., 2014) and trust climate (Shih et al., 2012), but few has considered the
mediating mechanisms between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing. Using the
team learning theory, we identified two important mediators, namely psychological safety and
team efficacy, through which transformational leadership impacts knowledge sharing. The
empirical evidence of this study supported the proposed model. Therefore, this study is an
important addition to current literature on the dynamics between transformational leadership
and knowledge sharing.
Finally, we tested this model in an important international context – China, a highly
collectivistic society (Hofstede, 2001), where knowledge sharing seems to be consistent with
the dominant values, i.e., sharing the knowledge for the collective good rather than keeping the
knowledge to yourself for individual interests. This way we extend the existing model of
transformational leadership and knowledge sharing to the international context, an important
step towards developing a more robust theory on knowledge management that can help resolve
challenges in the increasingly globalized world market and also a valuable addition to
knowledge management literature. This again will enrich existing literature of relationships
between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing.
The findings of this study have important managerial implications as well. On the one hand, it
is necessary for organizations to carry out leadership development programs in order to
promote knowledge sharing. Organizations can benefit a lot by providing their managers with
transformational leadership training which can enhance followers’ perceptions of psychological
safety and team efficacy, which further promotes positive outcomes such as employee
knowledge sharing. As an “climate engineer”, transformational leaders play important roles in
creating safe working environment and shaping followers’ perceptions (Ayoko and Chua, 2014;
Carmeli et al., 2014; Jung and Sosik, 2002; Walumbwa et al., 2004; Zhou and Pan, 2015).
Therefore, organizations should pay more attention to the whole process of leadership training,
from training preparation, training implementation, to training evaluation and feedback in order
to provide organization leaders with sufficient skill to foster a psychologically safe and
collectively capable environment for better knowledge sharing. The skills of fostering a secure
and capable environment are even more important in China given that leaders are often
considered as a father-figure (Hofstede, 2001) whereby leaders are expected to take care of all
employee needs and employees are expected to devote all their efforts to the organization. Our
study thus suggests that proper leadership training programs are very important for effective
knowledge sharing in China.
On the other hand, this study shows that both psychological safety and team efficacy are
important mediating variables. Scholars have found that psychological safety is positively
related to knowledge sharing (Siemsen et al., 2009), voice behavior (Detert and Burris, 2007;
Liang et al., 2012), creative problem solving capacity (Carmeli et al., 2013), team learning
(Edmondson, 1999; Tucker, 2007), team effectiveness (Mu and Gnyawali, 2003),
organizational learning (Carmeli, 2007; Carmeli, Brueller, and Dutton, 2009; Carmeli and
Gittell, 2009), organizational performance (Baer and Frese, 2003), and team efficacy is
positively related to job satisfaction (Walumbwa et al., 2004), organizational commitment
(Walumbwa et al., 2004), and team performance (Gully et al., 2002; Lin et al, 2012; Srivastava
et al., 2006). Therefore, transformational leaders are required to monitor followers’ perceptions
of psychological safety and team efficacy from time to time and keep them at a high level to
facilitate knowledge sharing among organizational members.
To conclude, knowledge sharing has become more important for a firm’s success with the
advent of knowledge economy era (Alavi and Leidner 2001; Liu and DeFrank, 2013, Ma et al.,
2014). Since transformational leaders play an important role in promoting knowledge sharing,
we develop an integrated model to explore the mechanism through which transformational
leadership affects knowledge sharing and thus provides a new perspective to examine this
relationship. In this model, we propose that the four dimensions of transformational leadership
each has unique influence on knowledge sharing and we further identify two important
mediators, psychological safety and team efficacy, for the relationships between the dimensions
of transformational leadership and knowledge sharing. More research is called upon to
empirically validate the model proposed here and once supported, this integrated model is able
to generate more insights for research on knowledge management.
Limitations and future research
This study also has limitations and caution must be exercised. First, we only examined two
mediators and the effect of transformational leadership on employee knowledge sharing could
be affected by other factors, such as trust and human management practices (Collins and Smith
2006). Future research should examine more factors to investigate their impacts on the
relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing, and to improve the
rigor of the research by measuring and controlling for the effect of other possible intervention
Second, our research is based on the individual level data. While the findings of this study
can help organizations better understand the dynamics of knowledge sharing at the individual
level and thus more effective knowledge management programs can be designed to motivate
employees to share knowledge, many organizations have adopted work groups or teams in their
operations and how to stimulate team-level knowledge sharing has become more important and
valuable for organization performance. Whether our model is applicable to the team level
knowledge sharing is not yet verified in the current study. Team-based data should be used in
future studies to test the applicability of our model at the team level.
Finally, this study is based on perceptual data from self-reported questionnaires rather than
actual leadership behaviors or knowledge sharing behaviors, which is a potential threat to the
generalizability of this study. The common method variance (CMV) may also affect this study’s
generalizability. To test the CMV, the Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986)
was conducted by including all variables in an exploratory factor analysis using principal
component analysis method with varimax rotation. The factor analysis clearly showed that no
single factor explains more than 50% of the total variance, demonstrating the common method
bias is not a serious concern (Podsakoff et al, 2003). In addition, this study is a cross-sectional
design, and conclusions about the causality in our model cannot be drawn. Future research
could address this issue by obtaining data from experimental and longitudinal designs in
different industries and countries to improve our understanding on the relationship between
leadership and knowledge sharing.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (2001), “Review: Knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: Conception, foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 107-136.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, M., Hazenby, J. and Herron, H. (1996), “Assessing the work
environment for creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp.1154-1184.
Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., Dumdum, R. and Sivasubramaniam, N. (2001), “Virtual teams:
Implications e-leadership and team development”, in M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate
others in organizations, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 337-358
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), “Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 441-462.
Ayoko, O. B. and Chua, E. L. (2014), “The importance of transformational leadership behaviors
in team mental model similarity, team efficacy, and intra-team conflict”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 504-531.
Baer, M. and Frese, M. (2003), “Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and
psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 45-68.
Bagozzi, R. P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive view, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.
Bartol, K. M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), “Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of
organizational reward systems”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and performance, Free Press, New York.
Bass, B. M. (1999), “Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1993), “Transformational leadership and organizational culture”,
Public Administration Quarterly, pp. 112-121.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I. and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
88 No. 2, pp. 207-218.
Berraies, S. and El Abidine, S. Z. (2019), "Do leadership styles promote ambidextrous
innovation? Case of knowledge-intensive firms", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol.
23, No. 5, pp. 836-859.
Birasnav, M., Rangnekar, S. and Dalpati, A. (2011), “Transformational leadership and human
capital benefits: The role of knowledge management”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 106-126.
Boer, N., Berends, H., and Baalen, P. V. (2011). Relational models for knowledge sharing
behavior. European Management Journal, 29(2), 85-97.
Bono, J. E. and Judge, T. A. (2003), “elf-concordance at work: Toward understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leaders”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46
No. 5, pp. 554-571.
Brislin, R. W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials”,
Methodology, pp. 389-444.
Bryant, S. E. (2003), “The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating,
sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 32-44.
Cabrera, A. and Cabrera, E. F. (2002), “Knowledge-sharing dilemmas”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 687-710.
Cameron, P.D. (2002), “Managing knowledge assets: the cure for an ailing structure”, CMA
Management, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 20-23.
Carmeli, A. (2007), “Social capital, psychological safety and learning behaviors from failure in
organizations”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 30-44.
Carmeli, A. and Gittell, J. H. (2009), “High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and
learning from failures in work organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30
No. 6, pp. 709-729.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D. and Dutton, J. E. (2009), “Learning behaviors in the workplace: The
role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety”, Systems Research
and Behavioral Science, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 81-98.
Carmeli. A., Sheaffer, Z., Binyamin, G., Reiter-Palmon, R. and Shimoni, T. (2014),
“Transformational leadership and creative problem-solving: The mediating role of
psychological safety and reflexivity”, Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol 48 No. 2, pp.
Chen, L. Y. and Barnes, F. B. (2006), “Leadership behaviors and knowledge sharing in
professional service firms engaged in strategic alliances”, Journal of Applied Management
and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 51-69.
Chen, S. S., Chuang, Y. W. and Chen, P. Y. (2012), “Behavioral intention formation in
knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of KMS quality, KMS self-efficacy, and
organizational climate”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol 31, pp. 106-118.
Cheng, J. W. and Li, S. C. (2001), “The relationships of organization justice, trust and
knowledge sharing behaviors”, Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp.
Collins, C. J. and Smith, K. G. (2006), “Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of
human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 544-560.
Connelly, C. E. and Kelloway, E. K. (2003), “Predictors of employees’ perceptions of
knowledge sharing cultures”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24
No. 5, pp. 294-301.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. and Conway, N. (2005), “Exchange relationships: Examining
psychological contracts and perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 774-781.
Cummings, J. N. (2004), “Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global
organization”, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 352-364.
Del Giudice, M. and Maggioni, V. (2014), “Managerial practices and operative directions of
knowledge management within inter-firm networks: a global view”, Journal of Knowledge
Management,Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 841-846
Detert, J. R. and Burris, E. R. (2007), “Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door
really open?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 869-884.
deVries, R. E., Hoof, R. E. and Ridder, D. (2006), “Explaining knowledge sharing: The role of
team communication styles, job satisfaction and performance beliefs”, Communication
Research, Vo. 33 No. 2, pp. 115-135.
du Plessis, M. (2007), “The role of knowledge management in innovation”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 20-29.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of transformational leadership
on follower development and performance: A field experiment”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-744.
Edmondson, A. C. and Lei, Z. (2014), “Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and
future of an interpersonal construct”, The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 23-43.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-383.
Felin, T. and Hesterly, W. S. (2007), “The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and
new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge”, Academy of
management review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 195-218.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
García-Morales, V. J., Lloréns-Montes, F. J. and Verdú-Jover, A. J. (2008), “The effects of
transformational leadership on organizational performance through knowledge and
innovation”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 299-319.
Gowen, C. R. III, Henagan, S. C. and McFadden, K. L. (2009), “Knowledge management as a
mediator for the efficacy of transformational leadership and quality management initiatives
in US health care”, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 129-140.
Grant, A. M. and Berry, J. W. (2011), “The necessity of others is the mother of invention:
Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity”, Academy of
management journal, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 73-96.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y. and Neale, M. A. (1996), “Group composition
and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process
and performance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67 No. 1,
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J. M. (2002), “A meta-analysis of
team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as
moderators of observed relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp.
Guzzo, R. A. and Shea, G. P. (1992), “Group performance and intergroup relations in
organizations”, in M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 269-313.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J. and Shea, G. P. (1993), “Potency in groups:
Articulating a construct”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 87-106.
Hoffman, B.J., Bynum, B.H., Piccolo, R.F. and Sutton, A.W. (2011), “Person-organization
value congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effectiveness”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 779-796.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values, SAGE, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hu, J., Wang, Z., Liden, R.C. and Sun, J. (2012), “The influence of leader core self-evaluation
on follower reports of transformational leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp.
Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework”, Human
Resource Development Review, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 337-359.
Jex, S. M., and Thomas, J. L. (2003), Relations between stressors and group perceptions: Main
and mediating effects. Work and Stress, 17(2), 158-169.
Jung, D. I., and Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups the role of
empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective efficacy on perceived group performance. Small
group research, 33(3), 313-336.
Jung, D.I., Chow, C. and Wu, A. (2003), “The role of transformational leadership in enhancing
organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 14 No.4, pp. 525-544.
Kahn, W. A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. and Wei, K. K. (2005), “Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp.
Kark, R. and Shamir, B. (2002), “The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming
relational and collective selves and further effects on followers”, in B. J. Avolio and F. J.
Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead, Elsevier
Science, Oxford, UK, pp. 67-91.
Kessel, M., Kratzer, J. and Schultz, C. (2012), “Psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and
creative performance in healthcare teams”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 147-157.
Kurt, M., Birgit, R., Muller, J., Herting, S. and Mooradian, T. A. (2008), “Personality traits and
knowledge sharing”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 301-313.
Le, P. and Lei, H. (2019), "Determinants of innovation capability: The roles of transformational
leadership, knowledge sharing and perceived organizational support”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 527-547.
Li, G. Q., Shang, Y. F., Liu H. X. and Xi, Y. M. (2014), “Differentiated transformational
leadership and knowledge sharing: A cross-level investigation”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 554-563.
Li, G., Shang, Y., Liu, H. and Xi, Y (2014), “Differentiated transformational leadership and
knowledge sharing: a cross-level investigation”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No.
4, pp. 554-563.
Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C. and Farh, J. L. (2012), “Psychological antecedents of promotive and
prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination”, Academy Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 1,
Lin, C. P., Baruch, Y. and Shih, W. C. (2012), “Corporate social responsibility and team
performance: The mediating role of team efficacy and team self-esteem”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 167-180.
Lin, H. F. (2007a), “Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge
sharing intentions”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-149.
Lin, H. F. (2007b), “Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 No. 3/4, pp. 315-332.
Lin, T. C., Wu S. and Lu C.T. (2012), “Exploring the affect factors of knowledge sharing
behavior: The relations model theory perspective”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 751-764.
Liu, Y. W. and DeFrank, R. S. (2013), “Self-interest and knowledge-sharing intentions: The
impacts of transformational leadership climate and HR practices”, International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1151-1164.
Lorinkova, N. M. and Perry, S. J. (2019), "The importance of group-focused transformational
leadership and felt obligation for helping and group performance", Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 231-247.
Ma, Z. and Tang, H. (2018, May), “Network structure and knowledge sharing efficiency in
industrial alliances: Where is the fit?”, Paper presented at the annual conference of the
Administrative Sciences Association of Canada (ASAC), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Ma, Z. and Yu, K. (2010), “Research paradigms of contemporary knowledge management
studies: 1998-2007”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 175-189.
Ma, Z., Huang, Y., Wu, J., Dong, W. and Qi, L. (2014), “What matters for knowledge sharing in
collectivistic cultures? Empirical evidence from China”, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 1004-1019.
Ma, Z., Qi, L. and Wang, K. (2008), “Knowledge sharing in Chinese construction project teams
and its affecting factors: An empirical study”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G. and Sheets, V. (2002), “A
comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects”,
Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 83-104.
Mittal, S. and Dhar R. L. (2015), “Transformational leadership and employee creativity”,
Management Decision, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 894-910.
Mu, S. H. and Gnyawali, D. R. (2003), “Developing synergistic knowledge in student groups”,
Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 689-711.
Muthén, L. K. and Muthén, B. O. (2012), Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables:
User's guide (7th edition). Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.
Nemanich, L. A. and Keller, R.T. (2007), “Transformational leadership in an acquisition: a field
study of employees”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 49-68.
Nguyen, H. N. and Mohamed, S. (2011), “Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and
knowledge management practices: An empirical investigation”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 206-221.
Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization
Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Ohana, M. and Meyer, M. (2010), “Should I stay or should I go now? Investigating the intention
to quit of the permanent staff in social enterprises”, European Management Journal, Vol. 28
No. 6, pp. 441-454.
Park, J. G., Lee, H. and Lee, J. (2015), “Applying social exchange theory in IT service
relationships: exploring roles of exchange characteristics in knowledge sharing”, Information
Technology and Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 193-206.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003), “Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems
and prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Qian, H., Bibi, S., Khan, A., Ardito, L. and Nurunnabi, M. (2019), "Does what goes around
really comes around? The mediating effect of CSR on the relationship between
transformational leadership and employee’s job performance in law firms," Sustainability,
Vol. 11, No. 12.
Rubin, R.S., Munz, D.C. and Bommer, W.H. (2005), “Leading from within: the effects of
emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 845-858.
Ruggles, R. (1998), “The state of notion: Knowledge management in practice”, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 80-89.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S.K. and Peng, A.C. (2011), “Cognition-based and affect-based trust as
mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 863-871.
Shamir, B., House, R. J. and Arthur, M. B. (1993), “The motivational effect of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-594.
Shariq, M. S., Mukhtar, U., and Anwar, S. (2019), "Mediating and moderating impact of goal
orientation and emotional intelligence on the relationship of knowledge oriented leadership
and knowledge sharing", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 332-350.
Shao, L. and Webber, S. (2006), “A Cross-Cultural Test of the Five-Factor Model of
Personality and Transformational Leadership”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 8,
Shih, H. A., Chiang, Y. H. and Chen, T. J. (2012), “Transformational leadership, trusting
climate, and knowledge-exchange behaviors in Taiwan”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1057-1073.
Shin, Y. and Eom, C. (2014), “Team proactivity as a linking mechanism between team creative
efficacy, transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms and team creative performance”,
The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 89-114.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., Balasubramanian, S., et al. (2009), “The influence of psychological
safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing”, Manufacturing and
Service Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 429-447.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M. and Locke, E. A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management
teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.
Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I. and Stewart, D. D. (2000), “Pooling unshared information: The
benefits of knowledge how access to information is distributed among group members”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 102-116.
Straub, D. W. (1989), “Validating instruments in MIS research”, MIS quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2,
Tohidinia, Z. and Mosakhani, M. (2010), “Knowledge sharing behavior and its predictors”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 110 No. 4, pp. 611-631.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: The role of intra-firm
networks”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, 464-476.
Tucker, A. L. (2007), “An empirical study of system improvement by frontline employees in
hospital units”, Manufacture Service Operation Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, 492-505
van Knippenberg, B. and van Knippenberg, D. (2005), “Leader self-sacrifice and leadership
effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Walumbwa. F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J. and Shi, K. (2004), “The role of collective efficacy in
the relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 515-530.
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A. and Werner, J. M. (1998), “Managers as
initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial
trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 513-530.
Wong, A., Tjosvold, D. and Lu, J. (2010), “Leadership values and learning in China: The
mediating role of psychological safety”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 48
No. 1, pp. 86-107.
Xiao, Y., Zhang, X. and Ordóñez de Pablos, P. (2017), “How does individuals’ exchange
orientation moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge
sharing?”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1622-1639.
Xue, Y., Bradley, J. and Liang, H. (2011), “Team climate, empowering leadership, and
knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 299-312.
Yang, J. T. (2007), “Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and
collaborative culture”, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 530-543.
Yang, J. T. (2010), “Antecedents and consequences of knowledge sharing in international
tourist hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 42-52.
Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C. and Zazanis, M. (1995), "Collective Efficacy", in James E.
Maddux (Ed.), Self-Efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory, Research, and Application,
Plenum Press, NY, pp. 305-328.
Zhang, A.Y., Tsui, A.S. and Wang, X.W. (2011), “Leadership behaviors and group creativity in
Chinese organizations: The role of group processes”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 5,
Zhang, X., Cao, Q. and Tjosvold, D. (2011), “Linking transformational leadership and team
performance: A conflict management approach”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48
No. 7, pp. 1586-1611.
Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K. and Chen, H. (2010), “Exploring the role of psychological safety
in promoting the intention to continue sharing knowledge in virtual communities”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 425-436.
Zhou, Q. and Pan., W. (2015), “A cross-level examination of the process linking
transformational leadership and creativity: The role of psychological safety climate”, Human
Performance, Vol. 28 N0. 5, pp. 405-424.
Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J. and Walumbwa, F. O. (2009), “Moderating role of follower
characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 590-619.
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age 1.54 0.50
2. Education level 2.58 0.92 -0.00
3. Gender 1.48 0.74 -0.06 0.05
4. Working Experience 3.45 1.49 -0.05 0.85**
5. Idealized influence 3.71 0.70 -0.04 -0.07 -0.08 -0.08
6. Individualized consideration 3.44 0.83 0.03 -0.08 -0.04 -0.12* 0.80***
7. Inspirational motivation 3.58 0.76 -0.05 -0.05 -0.06 -0.08 0.78*** 0.79***
8. Intellectual stimulation 3.65 0.73 -0.05 -0.08 -0.06 -0.11* 0.75*** 0.78*** 0.75***
9. Psychological safety 3.54 0.56 -0.01 -0.03 -0.02 -0.05 0.49*** 0.55*** 0.54*** 0.53***
10. Team efficacy 3.56 0.68 -0.02 -0.02 -0.06 -0.03 0.49*** 0.51*** 0.51*** 0.48***
11. Employee knowledge sharing 4.04 0.57 -0.07 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.34*** 0.32** 0.33** 0.35** 0.44*** 0.46***
Note: N=421, *P < 0.05; **P< 0.01; ***P<0.001 (two-tailed); Employee age: 1= below 25 years old, 2=between 25 and 35 years old, 3=between 36 and 45 years old,
4=between 46 and 55 years old, 5=56 years old or above; Education level: 1= high school diploma or below, 2= bachelor degree, 3=master degree, 4=doctoral degree;
Gender: 1=male, 2=female; working experience: 1= below 3 years, 2=between 3 and 5 years, 3=between 5 and 10 years, 4=between 10 and 15 years, 5=15 years and
Confirmatory factor analysis results
Alternative Models χ2 χ2/df CFI NFI IFI TLI GFI RMSEA
One-factor model 2528.03 5.11 0.77 0.73 0.77 0.76 0.65 0.099
Three-factor model A
(II+IC+IM+IS, PS+TE, KS) 1443.02 2.93 0.89 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.068
Three-factor model B
(II+IC+IM+IS+ KS, PS, TE) 1883.86 3.83 0.84 0.80 0.84 0.83 0.77 0.082
Three-factor model C
(II+IC+IM+IS+PS, TE, KS) 1917.55 3.90 0.84 0.80 0.84 0.82 0.73 0.083
Three-factor model D
(II+IC+IM+IS+TE, PS, KS) 1693.50 3.44 0.87 0.82 0.87 0.85 0.78 0.076
(II+IC+IM+IS, PS, TE, KS) 1389.37 2.84 0.90 0.85 0.90 0.89 0.82 0.066
(II, IC, IM, IS, PS+TE+KS) 1331.92 2.75 0.91 0.85 0.91 0.90 0.83 0.064
Six-factor model A
(II, IC, IM, IS, PS+TE, KS) 1016.85 2.12 0.94 0.89 0.94 0.93 0.87 0.052
Six-factor model B
(II, IC, IM, IS, PS, TE+KS) 1222.27 2.55 0.92 0.87 0.92 0.91 0.84 0.061
Six-factor model C
(II, IC, IM, IS, PS+ KS, TE) 1289.07 2.69 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.90 0.84 0.063
Seven-factor model 959.81 2.03 0.95 0.90 0.95 0.94 0.88 0.049
Note: N = 421, II = idealized influence, IC = individualized consideration, IM = inspirational motivation, IS = intellectual stimulation, PS = psychological safety, KS =
knowledge sharing, TE = team efficacy.
Results of hierarchical regression analyses
Variables Knowledge sharing Psychological
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Gender -0.07 -0.06 -0.06 0.00 -0.01 -0.05
Employee age 0.02 -0.02 -0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.01
Education level 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.01 -0.03 0.05
Working exprience 0.04 0.09 0.08 -0.01 0.01 0.04
Idealized influence 0.35** 0.06 0.09
0.32** 0.20** 0.17* -0.09
Inspirational motivation 0.34** 0.21** -0.00
Intellectual stimulation 0.37** 0.19** 0.14 0.11
Psychological safety 0.45*** 0.20**
Team efficacy 0.47*** 0.23**
Note: N=421, *P < 0.05; **P< 0.01; ***P<0.001 (two-tailed)
Indirect effect test results for different paths
Path βa βb Indirect effect
1a: II->PS->KS - - - -
2a: IC->PS ->KS 0.200 0.203 0.041 (0.006, 0.096)
2b: IC->TE->KS 0.172 0.231 0.040 (0.010, 0.094)
3b: IM->TE->KS 0.213 0.231 0.049 (0.015, 0.112)
4a: IS->PS->KS 0.198 0.203 0.040 (0.006, 0.101)
4b: IS->TE->KS - - - -
Note: N =421, II = idealized influence, IC = individualized consideration, IM = inspirational motivation, IS = intellectual
stimulation, PS = psychological safety, TE = team efficacy, KS = employee knowledge sharing, βa= the result of the regression of
the mediator variable with the antecedent variable, βb= the result of the regression of the result variable to the mediator variable.
A Research Model on Transformational Leadership and Employee Knowledge Sharing
A Revised Model on Transformational Leadership and Employee Knowledge Sharing