How does individuals’ exchange orientation moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing?

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to explore the complex relationship between leadership and organizational knowledge sharing by investigating the moderating role of exchange ideology on the relation between transformational leadership in attributed charisma and knowledge sharing and the influence of attributed charisma and knowledge sharing on task performance. The influence of leadership in organizational knowledge sharing process has been gradually highlighted.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on the review of relevant literature and survey, a structural equation model considering four factors in the model together is now constructed and provides four hypotheses which can be verified. Self-completed questionnaires were collected from 163 students in the context of a graduate class in China.

Findings

The findings illustrate the relationship between leadership theory and knowledge sharing from a perspective of social exchange theory. In particular, results show that both transformational leadership and knowledge sharing have positive impacts to task performance and for individuals with low exchange ideology the positive influence from attributed charisma to knowledge sharing is stronger.

Originality/value

This research introduces exchange ideology as a moderator and explains the complex relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing with sufficient proof. Transformational leadership in attributed charisma is more effective to those individuals with low exchange ideology in facilitating their knowledge effort. This paper can be theoretically and practically helpful to researchers and enterprise leaders in organizational knowledge management.

Citation

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. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2017-0120