Transformational leadership and employee knowledge sharing: explore the mediating roles of psychological safety and team efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims—based on past research works which have shown that transformational leadership has positive impact on knowledge sharing—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 data were collected 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. Originality/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 understudied. 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".