Organizational Norms and Leadership Effectiveness: Do the Leader's Innovative Behavior and Knowledge Sharing Intention Matter?

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-76182/v1

Download PDF

Research

Organizational Norms and Leadership Effectiveness: Do the Leader's Innovative Behavior and Knowledge Sharing Intention Matter?

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-76182/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Even though organizations are failing because of leadership ineffectiveness, there is no consensus on the secret behind leadership effectiveness. Therefore, this study is aimed to investigate the role of subjective organizational norms on leadership effectiveness with a specific contribution from a leader’s innovative behavior, knowledge sharing intention, and autonomy. To achieve this, I analyzed data collected from 104 Ethio Telcom employees using the ordinary least square (OLS) regression and hierarchical regression analysis. The result of the OLS regression revealed that organizational norms influence leadership effectiveness indirectly through a leader’s innovative behavior. This relationship is intensified when the leader is intended to share knowledge more. Moreover, the presence of high autonomy among leaders leads to the development of innovative behavior among those leaders, which further improves the effectiveness of leaders. Besides the above findings, future researchers should compare and contrast the above relationship among the leaders and employees. They should also test the role of other entrepreneurial variables such as risk-taking and proactiveness concerning leadership effectiveness.

Behavioral Economics

Leadership effectiveness

organizational norms

Innovative behavior

Knowledge sharing intentions

Organizations are failing because of ineffective leadership (Robertson and Williams, 2006) and leadership effectiveness considers as an outcome when the individuals in the positions of leadership can impact a group to perform their roles (Dhar & Mishra, 2001). One of the factors that determine this effectiveness might be the organizational norms. For instance, Vardiman, Houghton, & Jinkerson, 2006) stated that culture facilitates the development of effective leaders (Kargas & Varoutas, 2015). Besides, De Long and Fahey (2000) consider that organizational culture plays a fundamental role in the creation, sharing, and use of knowledge. They state that one of the major ways in which culture influences knowledge management practices is by establishing norms.

Individuals have a positive attitude towards behaviors believed to be associated with desirable attributes and outcomes (Khari & Sinha, 2017). Some of these behaviors include; knowledge sharing intentions, innovative behavior, and autonomous behavior. For example, According to Ajzen, (2012), subjective social norms influence the development of behavioral intentions. Nevertheless, their intention to behave in a certain way, are attenuated when they believe they do not have the resources or opportunities to act that way (Ajzen, 2012). Therefore, leaders influence employees’ innovative behavior, and this individual innovation is central to organizational learning (Jong and Hartog, 2007) including knowledge sharing. Scholars have recently started to explore leadership as a tool to address challenges and facilitate knowledge sharing in organizations (Khari & Sinha, 2017). Besides knowledge sharing, autonomy also leads to more proactive behavior and personal initiative (Foss et al., 2009). Cai et al., (2018) illustrate that under the condition of high job autonomy, servant leadership may lead to innovative work behavior. Concerning this, Jong and Hartog, (2007) address how leaders may influence individual innovation.

Nowadays organizations suffer from poor supervision, poor interpersonal relationships, poor working conditions, and lack of healthy work conditions is a hindrance to employee motivation (Hocine and Zhang, 2014). The specific business problem is some managers do not know the relationship between employees’ sense of self-worth, subjective norms, attitudes, and intentions to share knowledge with other employees (Wu & Lin, 2013; Zhang & Ng, 2012; Roth, 2016). The problem is that organizations continue to fail due to ineffective leadership (Robertson and Williams, 2006). That means, one of the main causes of failure is the lack of effective leadership (Schmid and Adams, 2008; Hocine and Zhang, 2014). Employees may also be reluctant to share knowledge because of organizational culture norms, lack of trust, poor management support, absence of reciprocity, or fear of losing power (Sharma, Singh, & Neha, 2012; Roth, 2016).

Much of the early research in the area of leadership has focused on the identification of traits that would predict leadership effectiveness (eg. Personality and motivational variables are also considered as important predictors of leadership) (Reiter-Palmon, 2003). However, there are inconsistent findings in the study of leader’s innovative behavior and leadership, which requires recent developments that give attention to the specific issues of innovative behaviors, autonomous, and knowledge sharing intentions. For instance, Le Blanc et al., (2019) stated that identifying how leadership may stimulate work team innovative behavior. However, leadership models developed for more routine settings may not generalize to the leadership of innovative people (Mumford and Licuanan, 2004). Although innovative behavior is crucial, it has received very little attention from researchers (Jong and Hartog, 2007). Even though several studies considers the relationship between leadership style and innovation, the study of the role of innovative behavior towards leadership effectiveness is under-researched. It’s also crucial to identify how the leaders become effective from their innovative behavior. Therefore, this research makes a novel contribution by revealing the role of a leader’s innovative behavior in the relationship between social norms and leadership effectiveness. Particularly it focused on a leader’s innovative behavior, while the majority of the previous studies deal with employee’s innovative behavior.

The studies on the relationship between leadership and innovative behavior show inconsistent findings. Nederveen et al., (2010), therefore, pointed out that a possible cause for this inconsistent findings might be the presence of moderator variables (Le Blanc et al., 2019). For instance, little is known about the mechanisms of the effects of autonomy-supportive leadership on effectiveness (Hocine and Zhang, 2014). Despite the impact of high or low levels of job autonomy on how employees respond to the effect of leadership concerning their perception of engaging in meaningful work, levels of autonomy can be still critical in predicting levels of innovative work behavior (Cai et al., 2018). Theoretically, the concept of leadership and autonomy support has lacked attention (Hocine and Zhang, 2014). Still, we know little on the level of contribution of autonomy on intensifying the influence of innovative behavior on leadership effectiveness. Beyond this autonomy, several studies have explained that subjective norms about knowledge-sharing positively affect knowledge-sharing intention (Abdillah et al., 2018). Although international research on employee innovative working behavior offers a wide range of explanations for factors that are likely to predict innovative work behavior (e.g., Agarwal et al., 2012), there are no identified studies that test knowledge sharing intentions in intensifying the influence of organizational norms on innovative behavior. To be effective, Hülsheger et al., (2009) recommend that leaders have to stimulate innovation through consistent striving in providing their team members with high norms and support for innovative endeavors (Le Blanc et al., 2019).

In general, this study tends to answer the following two research questions; 1) How do organizational norms affect leadership effectiveness? 2) Do knowledge sharing intentions have a role in the influence of organization subject norms and leaders' innovative behavior? 3) Do leaders autonomous makes a difference in the relationship between innovative behavior and leadership effectiveness? Therefore this study investigates organizational subjective norms and leadership effectiveness, with special consideration of the leader's innovative behavior and knowledge sharing intention.

2.1. Organizational norms and leadership effectiveness

Institutional structures such as shared values, norms, accepted practices, or perceptions held by employees within an organization are usually described as “culture” (King, 2007). Leadership is an emergent phenomenon within complex systems, which interacts with elements such as culture, norms, trends, etc (Kargas & Varoutas, 2015). Leaders with strong leadership skills can shape a positive culture in the organization (Ionescu, 2014). Therefore, leadership and organizational culture are considered to be two of the most crucial organizational elements for firms to compete successfully (Kargas & Varoutas, 2015). According to Connelly et al. (2000), a social judgment measure was predictive of leader achievement. Besides, Zaccaro et al. stated that social intelligence is essential to leader effectiveness because it links the person and situation aspects of leadership (Slemp et al., 2018). Similarly, Vardiman, Houghton, & Jinkerson, 2006) supported the idea of a culture that facilitates the development of effective leaders on every organizational level. Therefore, it’s hypothesized that;

H1: Organizational norms positively influence leadership effectiveness

2.2. The role of leaders innovative Behavior

The intention to engage in a behavior and the practice of the behavior itself are influenced by individuals’ perception of behavioral control (Moreno et al., 2020). Previous work has indicated that employees’ innovative behavior depends greatly on their interaction with others in the workplace (Anderson et al., 2004), which is determined by norms. Therefore, a positive organizational culture influences the behavior and attitude of the employees in the organization for the better (Hao & Yazdanifard, 2015). Leaders have a powerful source of influence on employees’ work behaviors (Yukl, 2002), including innovative behavior (Jong and Hartog, 2007). That is because, leadership can be vital to unlocking employees’ search for purpose and facilitating their growth toward innovative achievements (Yoshida et al., 2014; Cai et al., 2018). Besides, employees need to be both willing and able to innovate (Jong and Hartog, 2007) and leaders need to develop innovative behavior. Even though the relationships between leadership styles and levels of innovation in work teams is still limited (Le Blanc et al., 2019), Jong and Hartog, (2007) address how leaders may influence individual innovation. On the other hand, Michaelis et al., (2009) found that charismatic leadership was positively related to innovation implementation behavior.

To be effective, leaders need to stimulate innovation through a consistent striving to provide their followers with high norms and support for innovative endeavors (Hülsheger et al., 2009). Moreover, Basadur (2004), notes that the most effective leaders will help individuals to coordinate and integrate their differing styles through a process of applied creativity (Jong and Hartog, 2007). As a part of organizational norms, task characteristics are manifold, and the tasks are taken together to determine the innovative activity (Shalley et al., 2000; Cai et al., 2018). If an innovation by a work team is successful, it can give rise to a new practice at the organizational level (Axtell, Holman, & Wall, 2006; Caldwell & O’Reilly, 2003), which further improves the leader's effectiveness. Therefore, there is a necessity to test the mediating role of leader’s innovative behavior in the relationship between organizational norm and leadership effectiveness. Therefore I proposed that;

H2: Organizational norms indirectly affect leadership effectiveness through a leader’s innovative behavior.

2.3. The role of leaders autonomy

There are inconsistent findings in the study of a leader’s innovative behavior and leadership and varies. A possible cause for these inconsistent findings regarding the relationships between leadership and innovative behavior might be the presence of moderator variables (Nederveen et al., 2010). For instance, Cai et al., (2018) found the moderating role of job autonomy in the path from servant leadership to meaningful work. Autonomy is an underlying element of the internal organization that is perceived to support entrepreneurial behavior (Hornsby et al., 2002) including innovative behavior. This is because, autonomy has been studied as a way of inducing new behavior and creativity (Burcharth et al., 2017), which influences leaders' effectiveness. Besides, leader autonomy is a cluster of supervisory behaviors that collectively promote a climate of support and understanding within leader-worker relationships (Reeve, 2015). That means when teams enjoy relatively high autonomy as well as high control over their work and ideas, their creativity flourishes (Patanakul et al., 2012). Accordingly, leaders play a crucial role in energizing change, creativity, innovation, and success of their organization, while other researches on the effects of an autonomy-supportive managerial style have found a variety of positive work outcomes (Hocine and Zhang, 2014).

A high level of job autonomy motivate greater innovative work behavior (Cai et al., 2018), and more freedom innovative of innovativeness (Patanakul et al., 2012). Even though the absence of possessing behavioral flexibility does not necessarily result in poor leadership, leaders who do display these characteristics will be effective (Zaccaro et al., 2008; Slemp et al., 2018). Therefore, job autonomy is often presented as an important contextual factor in predicting employee creativity and innovation (Liu et al., 2011). Further, behavioral and cognitive flexibility are distinct constructs and that both contribute uniquely to the prediction of leadership (Reiter-Palmon, 2003). That means, the entrepreneurial behavior (eg., innovative behavior) with flexibility contributes more to leadership effectiveness. Given these discussions, it is of interest to determine whether innovative behavior would predict leadership with the moderation of leaders autonomous. Therefore, we hypothesized that;

H3: The more the leaders are autonomous, the more the leader’s innovative behavior influences leadership effectiveness.

2.4. The role of knowledge sharing intentions

The behavior attitude is an essential antecedent of the intention to act that way and materialize the behavior, including knowledge sharing (Chen, Chuang, & Chen, 2012). The intention to share knowledge is a mental state of an information professional that represents his/her commitment to carrying out an action or actions of sharing knowledge (Adeyinka, 2015). Besides, individual innovation is central to several well-known management principles, including organizational learning (Jong and Hartog, 2007) Such as knowledge sharing. This knowledge transfer and exchange among group members of an organization facilitates the development of new as well as the sharpening of existing individual competencies (Hakkarainen et al., 2004). It also facilitates the advancement of individual competencies and collectively creates new knowledge (Sveiby, 2001). Conversely, Fu (2012) discovered that the overall importance of incentives diminishes when firms open up for innovation.

Sharing of knowledge typically occurs in the informal networks in the organization through social interaction (Adeyinka, 2015). Specifically, subjective norms are used to predict the behavior of individuals to participate in a certain activity (Hsu et al., 2016) including creativity and innovation. The strength of the behavioral beliefs is directly proportional to the value that an individual attaches to the outcome of the behavior (Khari & Sinha, 2017). Besides, building a relationship of trust within an organization will help to facilitate the open knowledge sharing process (Adeyinka, 2015). Further, the classic theory of reasoned action stated that the intention to engage in a specific behavior is determined by attitudes towards that behavior as well as by perceptions of social norms (Cabrera and Cabrera, n.d.).

Subjective norms were significantly related to personal inclinations to share knowledge (Roth, 2016). Organizations, therefore, attempt to foster cultures characterized by spiritual aspects of interconnectedness, meaning, and purpose to promote a willing attitude towards knowledge sharing (Khari & Sinha, 2017). The subjective norm on knowledge-sharing is the social pressure to engage in or perform knowledge-sharing behavior (Chatzoglou & Vraimaki, 2009; Lin and Lee, 2004). Particularly, organizational culture can influence knowledge sharing by creating an environment in which there are strong norms regarding the importance of sharing one’s knowledge with others (Abdillah et al., 2018). Therefore, there is a necessity to test the influence of organizational norms and innovative behavior at a different level of innovative behavior. That is;

H4: The higher the leader’s knowledge sharing intentions, the better the organizational norms facilitate for a leader's innovative behavior influences leadership effectiveness.

In general, the following conceptual framework is developed

3.1. Research Setting and Design

This study aimed to determine the role of organizational subjective norms on leadership effectiveness, with special consideration of the leader's innovative behavior and knowledge sharing intention. To achieve this, explanatory research design was employed. This design is employed to investigate the role of organizational norms and firm performance with a specific role of leader’s innovative behavior, knowledge sharing intentions, and autonomy. To undertake this study, a total of 200 samples were selected from a total population of 5644 MSEs using Malhorta Naresh’s sample size determination table. In this process, a simple random sampling technique is used to take samples from the total population. Out of the 200 selected samples, a total of 122 responses were validated and analyzed. The researcher also administered a survey method to collect data from the target group of small enterprises.

3.2. Instruments

The items used for measuring the variables are mostly adopted from previous researches. Chatzoglou and Vraimaki (2009) developed a knowledge-sharing intention that measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree and strongly agree. The sample item includes “I will try to share my knowledge with my colleagues more frequently in the future” and “I will try to share my knowledge with my colleagues in a more effective way”. Some authors adopted this instrument to measure knowledge sharing intentions (eg. Abdillah et al., 2018). On the other hand, Bock et al. (2005) developed knowledge-sharing intention items measured on the three-item scale and rated on a seven-point Likert scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. A sample item is “I intend to share my work experience or know-how from work with other organizational members more frequently in the future.” Later, these items are also adopted by authors such as Cai et al., (2020) to measure the knowledge sharing intentions. After making a comparison, a four-item knowledge sharing intention questionnaire was adopted for this study.

Scott and Bruce (1994) developed six items for measuring innovative work behavior A sample item is “I searched out new technologies, processes, techniques, and/or products” (a = 0.89) (Cai et al., 2018). González-Romá et al., (2009) developed a team innovative behavior scale rated on a six-point Likert scale from totally false to totally true. A sample item is “In my team, people make use of their knowledge and skills to put new working methods, new services, or new products into practice.” The range used to measure the items is changed to a seven-point Likert scale ranging from totally false to totally true. On the other hand, Burcharth et al., (2017) used three internal organizational activities to measure employee autonomy, namely: supporting employees to work on their ideas; providing employees with time for creativity; and initiating intrapreneurial activities. Of the 10 items used to measure basic psychological need satisfaction by Shir et al., (2018), four of them are used to measure autonomy. Respondents are asked to rate these items on a seven-point Likert scale ranged from not true at all to very true. Examples of items include “I feel like I am free to decide for myself how to live my life”. These four items are adopted and used for this research.

Regarding subjective norm measures, Lin and Lee (2004) used six items related to knowledge sharing. The items are rated on five points Likert scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Examples of items include “Institution encourages employees to share their knowledge with colleagues” (Abdillah et al., 2018). Moreno et al., (2020) used a four-item questionnaire to measure subjective group norm. A sample item includes “My coworker's exchange information and tips that are useful to improve their job performance.” Therefore, I adopted these items to measure subjective norms in an organization. Earlier, the effectiveness of leaders is determined based on examining the consequences of a leader’s action, measuring the attitudes of followers in the direction of the leader, and studying leader behaviors (Madanchian et al, 2017). For this study, a four-item questionnaire from Bass and Avolio (1990), cited in Lacerda & Veríssimo, (2015) is adopted and modified since the respondents are the leaders. These items are measured on five points Likert scale. A sample item is “My leadership is effective in meeting job-related needs.”

3.3. Data processing and analysis

Data were processed before the analysis was made. Accordingly, the collected data were organized to create order and sensible structure. Later, key themes for data analysis were generated based on the collected data. Finally, the data were coded and carefully connected to the theoretical propositions and entered into the SPSS software. After data processing is completed, data analysis was undertaken. The analysis technique that was employed in this study to test the hypotheses were ordinary least square regression analysis and hierarchical regression analysis. Before running the analysis the validity and reliability tests have been undertaken. First, the questionnaire was checked by two independent professionals on the subject matter and a sample of 15 questionnaires was sent for pilot studies. Next, a reliability test was undertaken using Cronbach’s alpha. The collinearity tests were also undertaken and found that the highest VIF is 4.56, which shows collinearity is not a concern.

4.1. The mediating role of leaders innovative behavior

Table 1

Ordinary least square regression analysis result
Paths	Tests	B	T	Sig.
Path 1	DV: Leadership effectiveness R = .779 R² = .607 Sig = .000
	(Constant)	.152	.553	.581
	Organizational norms	1.022	12.553	.000
Path 2	DV: Leaders innovative behavior R = .745 R² = .555 Sig = .000
	(Constant)	− .002	− .006	.995
	Organizational norms	1.121	11.288	.000
Path 3	DV: Leadership effectiveness R = .840 R² = .706 Sig = .000
	(Constant)	.152	.639	.524
	Organizational subjective norms (a)	.561	5.287	.000
	Leaders innovative behavior (b)	.411	5.822	.000
Total	Path 2*path 3b	.461
*p < 0.01 p < 0.05 *p < 0.1

The R² value in the direct relationship between organizational norms and leadership effectiveness .607 revealed that the leadership effectiveness is explained by the organizational norms about 60.7%, while the R² in path 3 revealed that leadership effectiveness is explained by organizational subjective norms and leader’s innovative behavior about 70.6% (Table 1). Table 1 also revealed that organizational norms have a significant impact on the effectiveness of leadership (β = .152, p = .000). Therefore, the first hypothesis that claimed organizational subjective norms positively influences leadership effectiveness is supported. There is also a significant influence of organizational norms on a leader’s innovative behavior. Regarding the mediating role, a leader’s innovative behavior positively mediates the relationship between organizational norms and leadership effectiveness. This result also proved that there is an indirect effect of organizational norms on leadership effectiveness that supported hypothesis 2. That is organizational norms indirectly affect leadership effectiveness through a leader’s innovative behavior.

4.2. The moderating role of knowledge sharing intentions

The value of R2 indicates that when organizational norms are considered as an independent variable alone, leadership effectiveness is explained by about 55.5% by organizational norms. Later, when the moderators are added as an independent variable it increased to 61%, while the inclusion of the interaction variable is increased to 62.3%.

Table 2

The role of knowledge sharing intentions
Model	Model summary	Independent variables	B	T	Sig.
Model 1	R = .745 R² = .555 Adjusted R² = .551	(Constant)	− .002	− .006	.995
Model 1	R = .745 R² = .555 Adjusted R² = .551	Organization norms	1.121***	11.288	.000
Model 2	R = .745 R² = .555 Adjusted R² = .551	(Constant)	− .235	− .734	.464
		Organizational norms	.803***	6.379	.000
		Knowledge sharing intentions	.299***	3.762	.000
Model 3	R = .745 R² = .555 Adjusted R² = .551	(Constant)	1.246	1.471	.144
		Organizational norms	.309	1.066	.289
		Knowledge sharing intentions	− .079	− .366	.715
		Norms*KSI	.115*	1.885	.062
*p < 0.01 p < 0.05 *p < 0.1

Both organizational norms and knowledge sharing intention significantly influence leadership effectiveness independently (Model 1). Similarly, in Model 2 the organizational norms (β = .803, p = .000) and knowledge sharing intentions (β = .299, p = .000) significantly positively influences the leadership effectiveness. Finally, in the third model, the interaction of organizational norms and knowledge sharing intentions (β = .115, p = .062) positively significantly influences leadership effectiveness.

4.3. The moderating role of Autonomous

The R² value .624 in model 1 (of the relationship between innovative behavior and leadership effectiveness) is increased to .731 in model 3. That is the leadership effectiveness is explained 73.1% by innovative behavior, leadership autonomy, and their interaction.

Table 3

The role of autonomy
Model	Model summary	Independent variables	B	T	Sig.
Model 1	R = .790 R² = .624 Adjusted R² = .621	(Constant)	.949***	4.578	.000
Model 1	R = .790 R² = .624 Adjusted R² = .621	Innovative behavior	.689***	13.021	.000
Model 2	R = .855 R² = .731 Adjusted R² = .725	(Constant)	− .074	− .310	.758
		Innovative behavior	.510***	9.577	.000
		Leadership autonomy	.372***	6.317	.000
Model 3	R = .855 R² = .731 Adjusted R² = .723	(Constant)	− .100	− .353	.725
		Innovative behavior	.519***	6.766	.000
		Leadership autonomy	.384***	4.353	.000
		Inn. behavior*Leaders Autonomy	− .004	− .173	.863
*p < 0.01 p < 0.05 *p < 0.1

The direct impact of organizational subjective norms on leadership effectiveness is significant. Consistently, the finding of Connelly et al. (2000), revealed that a social judgment measure was predictive of leader achievement. Zaccaro et al., (2008) focus on the specific issue of social intelligence and states it is predictive of leader effectiveness (Slemp et al., 2018). On the other hand, some studies stated organizational culture is a predictor of leadership effectiveness (eg. Vardiman, Houghton, & Jinkerson, 2006; Kargas & Varoutas, 2015). That means as the norms such as exchanging of information, developing different approaches to solving problems, and the use of new knowledge and skills in the organization is supporting the leadership to be effective. This happened because the improved norms and cultures of an organization contribute to the improvement and effectiveness of leadership.

A leader’s innovative behavior mediates the influence of organizational norms on leadership effectiveness. Hao & Yazdanifard, (2015), organizational culture influences the behavior in the organization for the better. On the other hand, leaders have a powerful source of influence on employees’ work behaviors (Yukl, 2002), including innovative behavior (Jong and Hartog, 2007). Several studies conducted in the relationship between leadership style and innovation consider innovation as a dependent variable (eg. Michaelis, Stegmaier, and Sonntag 2009; Le Blanc et al., 2019; Liden et al., 2014; Panaccio et al., 2015). The above findings test the influence of the different types of leadership styles on different types of innovative behavior. However, this study revealed particularly the innovative behavior of leaders and the subjective norms of organizations. Particularly, the norms in the organization influence the leader’s innovative behavior, which further affects leadership effectiveness. The innovative behavior improves the psychological aspects of individuals which are the building blocks of subjective norms.

The study finds that knowledge sharing intention intensifies the influence of organizational norms on a leader’s innovative behavior. That is, as the leaders intend to share knowledge with employees, the organizational norms become improved and makes the leaders develop innovative behavior more. This is because the effect of personal attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control on knowledge-sharing behavior is indirectly influenced by knowledge-sharing intention (Abdillah et al., 2018), which further affects the leader's innovative behavior. Besides, subjective norms were significantly related to personal inclinations to share knowledge (Roth, 2016). Some findings revealed organizational culture influences the knowledge sharing behavior Khari & Sinha, 2017; Tang, 2017; Amayah, 2013; Sharma et al., 2012; Tsai et al., 2013; Roth, 2016; Chatzoglou & Vraimaki, 2009; Lin & Lee, 2004; Abdillah et al., 2018). This organizational culture plays a fundamental role in the creation, sharing, and use of knowledge by establishing norms De Long and Fahey (2000). Moreover, organizational culture can influence knowledge sharing by creating an environment in which there are strong norms (Abdillah et al., 2018), while the knowledge sharing in the organization form the corporate culture beneficial to knowledge share (Tang, 2017). In this regard, the leader’s intention to share knowledge builds a strong organizational norm. This makes organizational norms influence more leadership effectiveness. More specifically, when leaders tend to share knowledge, they build a strong sense of organizational norms from the free flow of information that improves the effectiveness of leaders.

The finding of this study also supported the hypothesis that says the more the leaders are autonomous, the more the leader’s innovative behavior influences the leadership effectiveness. Concerning this, there are related findings that stated that a high level of job autonomy broadens employees’ choices and renders them more responsible for their work, it can motivate greater innovative work behavior (Cai et al., 2018). Similarly, employees who have a low degree of autonomy may gain a low level of psychological satisfaction that constrain individuals’ willingness to engage in desirable innovative behavior (Cai et al., 2018). That is, the leader's autonomy intensifies the leaders to be more innovative, which further strengthens the leader’s effectiveness. This is because, when leaders are autonomous and more responsible to make decisions, they tend to develop more innovative behavior that can make the leaders more effective. That means, the entrepreneurial behavior (eg., innovative behavior) with flexibility contributes more to leadership effectiveness.

Leadership effectiveness is an outcome of many factors related to the intentions, behavior, and practices of leaders, employees, and the overall organization. The findings of this study state that the strength of organizational norms leads to effective leadership. That means as the norms such as exchanging of information, developing different approaches to solving problems, and the use of new knowledge and skills in the organization is supporting the leadership to be effective. Similarly, organizational norms influence leadership effectiveness indirectly through a leader’s innovative behavior. Organizational norms also have a direct impact on the leader’s innovative behavior. This relationship is intensified when the leader is intended to share knowledge more. Moreover, the presence of high autonomy among leaders leads to the development of innovative behavior among those leaders. This development of innovative behavior further improves the effectiveness of leaders.

Depends on the results of this study the following implications are forwarded to future researchers. This study examines the impact of organizational norms on leadership effectiveness from the perspectives of a leader’s innovative behavior, knowledge sharing intentions, and autonomy. However, most of these tests captured the relationship from the perspectives of leaders. Therefore, I suggest to the future researchers to compare and contrast the above relationship among the leaders and employees. Besides innovativeness and autonomy, there is a necessity to test the role of other entrepreneurial variables such as risk-taking and proactiveness concerning leadership effectiveness. In this study, the mediating role of a leader’s innovative behavior on leadership effectiveness is tested. However, there is also a necessity to test the mediating role of leader’s autonomy and knowledge sharing intention in this relationship. Therefore, future researchers should consider all these relationships. Methodologically, this study's data collection is cross-sectional. However, it has paramount importance if the change in intentions and behaviors are tested in longitudinal studies. Therefore, future researchers should try to use longitudinal studies to test the changes in intentions and behaviors.

Availability of data and material

Data’s collected using questionnaire was available

Competing interests

The author declared that there is no competing interests.

Funding information

There are no funds received for this study

Authors’ contributions

Both authors collected the data, performed the statistical analysis, and drafted and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank New Global Vision College and the respondents participated and responded to the questionnaire.

Declaration

The author declares that the article has not been published previously in any form and any language.

Code availability

Not applicable

Abdillah, M. R., Lin, C.-T., Anita, R., Suroto, B., & Hadiyati (2018). Knowledge sharing behavior among banking officers in Indonesia. Journal of International Studies, 11(2), 136–153. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2018/11-2/10.
Adeyinka, T... The factors determining knowledge sharing intention among information professionals in Nigeria: a path model analysis. Regional Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 1 (1), 1–19.
Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S. (2012). Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and turnover intentions The mediating role of work engagement. Career Dev. Int., 17, 208–230. doi:10.1108/13620431211241063.
Ajzen, I. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In P. A. M. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology(Vol (1, pp. 438–459). London: Sage Publications.
Amayah, A. T. (2013). Determinants of knowledge sharing in a public sector organization. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, 454–471. doi:10.1108/JKM-11-2012-0369.
Anderson, N. R., de Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: a constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25 No(2), 147–174.
Axtell, C., Holman, D., & Wall, T. (2006). Promoting innovation: A change study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905X68240.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. "Behavioral Intention Formation in Knowledge Sharing: Examining the Roles of Extrinsic Motivators, Social Psychological Forces, and Organizational Climate," MIS Quarterly (29:1), March 2005, pp. 87–111.
Burcharth, A., Knudsen, M. P., & Søndergaard, H. A. (2017). The role of employee autonomy for open innovation performance. Business Process Management Journal, 23 No(6), 1245–1269.
Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (n.d.), Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices.
Caldwell, D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2003). The determinants of team-based innovation in organizations: The role of social influence. Small Group Research, 34, 497–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403254395.
Chatzoglou, P. D., & Vraimaki, E. (2009). Knowledge-sharing behaviour of bank employees in Greece. Business Process Management, 15(2), 245–266. doi:10.1108/14637150910949470.
Chen, S.-S., Chuang, Y.-W., & 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, 31, 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2012.02.001.
Chitra Khari, C., & Sinha, S. (2017). Impact of Workplace Spirituality on Knowledge Sharing Intention: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Human Values, 23(1), 27–39.
Connelly, S., Gilbert, J., Zaccaro, S. J., Threlfall, K. V., Marks, M. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2000). Exploring the relationship of leadership skills and knowledge to leader performance. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 65–86.
De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). ‘Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management’. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113 – 27.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). ‘Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942.
Dhar, U., & Mishra, P. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: A study of constituent factors. Journal of Management Research, 1(4), 254–266.
Foss, N. J., Minbaeva, D. B., Pedersen, T., & Reinholt, M. (2009). Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: how job design matters. Human Resource Management, 48 No(6), 871–893.
Fu, X. (2012). How does openness affect the importance of incentives for innovation? Research Policy, 41 No(3), 512–523.
Gavin, R.. Slemp, G. R., Kern, M. L., Patrick, K. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion, 42, 706–724.
González-Romá, V., Fortes-Ferreira, L., & Peiro, J. M. (2009). Team climate, climate strength and team performance. A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 511–536.
Hakkarainen, K. P. J., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. 2004.Communities of Networked Expertise: Professional and Educational Perspectives, Advances in Learning and Instruction, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hao, M. J., & Yazdanifard, R. (2015). How Effective Leadership can Facilitate Change in Organizations through Improvement and Innovation. Global Journal of Management and Business Research: A Administration and Management Volume 15 Issue 9 Version 1.0.
Hocine, Z., & Zhang, J. (2004). Autonomy supportive leadership: a new framework for understanding effective leadership through self-determination theory. Int. J. Information Systems and Change Management, 7, No. 2.
Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17 No(3), 253–273.
Hsu, C. C., Hsu, Y. C., & Lin, C. T. (2016). Towards understanding senior citizens’ gateball participations behavior and well-being: An application of the theory of planned behavior. In S. Yamamoto (Ed.), Human Interface and the Management of Information: Applications and Services (pp. 466–477). Switzerland: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40397-7_44.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978.
Ionescu, V. (2014). Leadership, culture and organizational change. Manager,(20), 65–71.
Jong, J. P. J., & Hartog, D. N. D. (2007). How leaders influence employees’ innovative behavior. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10 No(1), 41–64.
Kargas, A. D., & Varoutas, D. (2015) On the relation between organizational culture and leadership: An empirical analysis, Cogent Business & Management, 2:1, 1055953, DOI:10.1080/23311975.2015.1055953.
King, W. (2007). A research agenda for the relationships between culture and knowledge management. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(3), 226–236.
Le Blanc, P. M., Vicente González-Romá, V., & Wang, H. (2019). Charismatic Leadership and Work Team Innovative Behavior: the Role of Team Task Interdependence and Team Potency. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09663-6.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1434–1452. doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0034.
Lin, H. F., & Lee, G. G. (2004). Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behaviour. Management Decision, 42(1), 108–125. doi:10.1108/00251740410510181.
Liu, D., Chen, X. P., & Yao, X. (2011). From autonomy to creativity: A multilevel investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 294–309.
Madanchian, M., Hussein, N., Noordin, F., & Taherdoost, H. (2017). Leadership effectiveness measurement and its effect on organization outcomes. Procedia Engineering, 182, 1043–1048.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2009). Affective commitment to change and innovation implementation behavior: the role of charismatic leadership and employees’ trust in top management. Journal of Change Management, 9, 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010903360608.
Moreno, V., Cavazotte, F., & Dutra, J. P. (2020). Psychosocial and Organizational Antecedents of Knowledge Sharing in the Workplace. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 24(4), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2020190239.
Mumford, M. D., & Licuanan, B. (2004). Leading for innovation: conclusions, issues, and directions. Leadership Quarterly, 15 No(1), 163–171.
Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.650.
Nederveen Pieterse, A., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.650.
Panaccio, A., Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Cao, X. (2015). Toward an understanding of when and why servant leadership accounts for employee extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 657–675. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9388-z.
Patanakul, P., Chen, J., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Autonomous Teams and New Product Development. J Prod Innov Manag 2012; 29(5):734–750.
Reeve, J. (2015). Giving and summoning autonomy support in hierarchical relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(8), 406–418.
Reiter-Palmon, R. (2003). Predicting Leadership Activities: The Role of Flexibility. Psychology Faculty Publications. 13. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/psychfacpub/13.
Robertson, S., & Williams, T. (2006). ‘Understanding project failure: using cognitive mapping in an insurance project’. Project Management Journal, 37(4), 55–71.
Roth, A. E. (2016). Knowledge Sharing Intentions in Wholesale Distribution Organizations. Walden University Scholar Works.
Schmid, B., & Adams, J. (2008). ‘Motivation in project management: the project manager’s perspective’. Project Management Journal, 39(2), 60–71.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior-A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607. doi:10.2307/256701.
Sharma, B. P., Singh, M. D., & Neha. (2012). Knowledge sharing barriers: An approach of interpretive structural modeling. IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 35–52. Retrieved from http://www.iupindia.in/Knowledge_Management.asp.
Sveiby, K. E. (2001). A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formulation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(4), 344–358.
Trivellas p., Akrivouli Z., Tsifora, E., & Tsoutsa, P. (2005). The impact of knowledge sharing culture on job satisfaction in accounting firms. The mediating effect of general competencies. Procedia Economics and Finance, 19, 238–247.
Tsai, M.-T., Chang, H.-C., Cheng, N.-C., & Lien, C.-C. (2013). Understanding IT professionals' knowledge sharing intention through KMS: A social exchange perspective. Quality and Quantity, 47, 2739–2753. doi:10.1007/s11135-012-9685-4.
Vardiman, P. D., Houghton, J. D., & Jinkerson, D. L. (2006). Environmental leadership development. Toward a contextual model of leader selection and effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 93–105.
Wenjing Cai, W., Lysova, E. I., Khapova, S. N., & Bossink, B. A. G.. Servant Leadership and Innovative Work Behavior in Chinese High-Tech Firms: A Moderated Mediation Model of Meaningful Work and Job Autonomy. Front. Psychol. 9:1767. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01767.
Wu, L.-W., & Lin, J.-R. (2013). Knowledge sharing and knowledge effectiveness: Learning orientation and co-production in the contingency model of tacit knowledge. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 28, 672–686. doi:10.1108/JBIM-04-2011-0050.
Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and proto typicality. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1395–1404. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.013.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., Ely, K., & Nelson, J. (2008). Leadership processes and work motivation. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 319–360). New York: Routledge.
Zhang, P., & Ng, F. F. (2012). Attitude toward knowledge sharing in construction teams. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112, 1326–1347. doi:10.1108/02635571211278956.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Organizational Norms and Leadership Effectiveness: Do the Leader's Innovative Behavior and Knowledge Sharing Intention Matter?

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Theory And Hypotheses

2.1. Organizational norms and leadership effectiveness

2.2. The role of leaders innovative Behavior

2.3. The role of leaders autonomy

2.4. The role of knowledge sharing intentions

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Setting and Design

3.2. Instruments

3.3. Data processing and analysis

4. Results

4.1. The mediating role of leaders innovative behavior

4.2. The moderating role of knowledge sharing intentions

4.3. The moderating role of Autonomous

5. Discussions

6. Conclusions

7. Theoretical Implication

8. Declarations

9. References

Status:

Version 1