The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of responsible leadership on knowledge sharing behavior. Furthermore, we investigated the mediating role of person-organization fit in the relationship between responsible leadership and knowledge sharing behavior. Moreover, higher educational institute culture moderates the relationship between responsible leadership and person-organization fit. The data collected from 295 respondents (teachers, head of department and management staff) from universities located in different cities of China. The data were gathered at one time, and therefore, the study is cross-sectional. Because of COVID-19, there have been a few universities closed; therefore, data were also collected online. The data were analyzed quantitatively using the partial least squares (PLS)–structural equation modelling (SEM) technique. The result indicated that responsible leadership is positively and significantly influential on knowledge sharing behavior directly, and also indirectly through mediator person-organization fit. Also, the higher educational institute culture positively and significantly moderates the relationship between responsible leadership and person-organization fit.
In recent management research, the concept of responsible leadership has received a lot of attention (Miska et al., 2013). For businesses, responsible leaders and knowledgeable employees are essential assets (Rehman et al., 2021). For inspiring workers' motivation, responsible leaders play a key role as role models (e.g., work engagement) (Yafi et al., 2021). At the same time, competent personnel play a vital role in sharing information in order to reciprocally help each other in attaining performance goals (e.g., through helpful initiatives) (Du et al., 2014). As a result of the efforts of such responsible leaders and employees’ awareness, much emphasis has been placed on what has been dubbed “responsible leadership” (Lynham & Chermack, 2006) and “knowledge sharing” (Lim & Lee, 2013). The influence of a leader over employees inside an organization to raise desired incentives (i.e., top–down influence) is referred to as responsible leadership. Knowledge sharing, on the other hand, is the impact of employees on one another in order to guide their own incentives (i.e., horizontal influence) (Haider et al., 2021). Responsible leadership is defined as a leader's ethical act of encouraging, interacting with, empowering, and persuading personnel to participate in responsible development and constructive change (e.g., Liu & Lin, 2018; Yafi et al., 2021). The degree to which personnel have favorable attitudes and are willing to share their expertise with one another is referred to as knowledge sharing (Bock & Kim, 2002).
Knowledge sharing and leadership, for example, have been identified as the most powerful aspects in human behavior in a social network setting by the literature on knowledge management (Xie et al., 2020). According to Ipe (2003), an organization's ability to exploit its knowledge for performance development is significantly reliant on its employees' information sharing, implying that knowledge sharing has a beneficial impact on job performance. On the same hand, past research suggests that responsible leadership (Doh & Quigley, 2014) is a significant driver of job performance because it serves as a role model for employees who are motivated to work hard to achieve employment objectives (Mata et al., 2021). It provides strong support for justifying the critical roles of responsible leadership and knowledge sharing in the development of job performance (Freeman & Auster, 2011; Jean et al., 2011; Maak & Pless, 2006). Previous literature has theoretically justified that when leadership and information sharing are coupled, a pleasant work climate emerges to influence performance, which is consistent with our major claim, above (Alzghoul et al., 2018). According to Gates (1995), leadership is a social exchange process that motivates workers to achieve performance goals that are shared by both leaders and workers. Responsible leadership, in particular, promotes the sense that the leader values employees' perspectives, pushing them to do their jobs well (Han et al., 2019). Simultaneously, according to social exchange theory, information or knowledge sharing based on social reciprocity is critical for increasing job performance (Jean et al., 2011; Mahmoud et al., 2021b). Employees are able to synthesize knowledge by exchanging and learning expertise in the workplace, which ultimately leads to improved job performance (Camisón-Haba et al., 2019). On the contrary, if sharing is disabled, job performance is likely to suffer. Although research has looked at how responsible leadership (Doh & Quigley, 2014) and information sharing (Kwahk & Park, 2016) influence job performance, the combined effect of responsible leadership and knowledge sharing has not been studied. Because researchers have found that knowledge sharing alone is insufficient to boost performance, such a simultaneous influence is worth investigating (Markovic & Bagherzadeh, 2018). Furthermore, how responsible leadership impacts the knowledge through the mediating mechanism of person-organization fit has yet to be tested in a single model scenario. As a result, our research aims to close this knowledge gap. The first aim of this study was to investigate the impact of responsible leadership on knowledge sharing behavior with the mediating role of person-organization fit between responsible leadership and knowledge sharing behavior. The degree of congruence between employee and organizational ideas, norms, values, and goals has traditionally been defined as person-organization fit (Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2013).
Likewise, scholars have asked for more research into a potential moderator of the impacts of leadership and information sharing on their subsequent consequences as knowledge sharing and leadership studies have developed (Bhargava & Pradhan, 2017). Faculty success in higher education is influenced by a variety of factors, including leadership style and organizational culture (Li et al., 2022). According to Thrash (2009), academic leaders must possess a variety of leadership abilities in order to be more effective in their positions. Heads of departments, chairpersons, and faculty deans play an important role in universities in leading their faculty to properly do their tasks since they produce assets (students) for the well-being of society and the country's future economic progress (Tehseen & Haider, 2021). An organization's culture is shaped to a large part by its leadership, and leadership can also influence organizational culture improvement (Peng et al., 2020). Employees can be energized by organizational culture, which is generally expressed in terms of shared values, beliefs, and assumptions. For example, organizational culture can foster ethics and virtuous behavior, which can improve a number of individual and organizational results (Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2013). Knowledge sharing is a key Knowledge Management (KM) procedure that has an impact on the success of KM programmes (Haider et al., 2021). However, according to one study, knowledge sharing is still under-researched in comparison to the other KM activities (Fullwood et al., 2013). While there have been numerous studies that have addressed knowledge sharing and some of its causes (McAdam et al., 2012; Michailova & Hutchings, 2006), little has been done to explore this in the context of Higher Educational Institutes (HEIs). Faculty members at higher education institutions play a critical role in producing and reusing their knowledge and intellectual property through research and teaching in this regard (Rehman et al., 2021). As a result, sharing knowledge, experience, and resources among academics has always been essential to university success (Ramayah et al., 2013). Despite this, there is a scarcity of research on information sharing in knowledge-intensive institutions such as HEIs, particularly those that consider significant cultural aspects in developing countries (Fullwood et al., 2013; Howell & Annansingh, 2013). Therefore, the second purpose of this study was to look into the impact of organizational culture in moderating the link between responsible leadership and person-organization fit in higher education.
Literature reviewResponsible leadership and knowledge sharing behaviorSeveral studies have shown that team leadership has a significant impact on knowledge sharing. Leadership has a direct impact on information sharing, according to these studies (Kim & Yun, 2015). Srivastava et al. (2006), for example, discovered that responsible leadership was linked to knowledge sharing. According to Lee et al. (2010), the knowledge builder's leadership role improved knowledge sharing in teams. Researchers also looked at the impact of the team's leadership on information sharing from a moral standpoint (Lu et al., 2019; Bavik et al., 2017). According to the social learning theory (Lee et al., 2010), responsible leadership can help people share their knowledge. It claims that followers pay attention to responsible leaders' actions, see them as attractive and credible role models, and begin to replicate their responsible leaders' modelled behaviors. Fairness, honesty, openness, values, and trustworthiness describe responsible leadership, which entails the role of a moral person or a moral manager both of whom may foster information sharing among their followers (Mai et al., 2022).
In contrast to other organizational settings, the scientific research team in a knowledge-based environment concentrates solely on knowledge creation or knowledge production. In the context of higher education, responsible leadership requires HODs, Deans and other persons to provide a moral example for academic staff and to emphasize the significant impact they may have. Responsible leadership will persuade others that they should care about and respect others, as well as urge them to engage in prosocial actions. The favorable association between responsible leadership and information sharing behavior in the workplace has been documented in the literature. As a result, we propose:
H1: Responsible leadership has a positive impact on knowledge sharing behavior.
Responsible leaders foster strong social ties in the workplace and maximize human potential through fostering a positive work environment, climate, and communication (Cameron & Caza, 2005). Because responsible leaders can build an ethical work environment to raise employees' satisfaction with their work, responsible leadership has a direct impact on employee work engagement and indirectly boosts job performance (Doh & Quigley, 2014). In other words, responsible leaders help employees achieve better job performance through increased psychological engagement (Yafi et al., 2021) as they set positive examples, communicate effectively, and inspire people to be fully immersed in their work in order to achieve positive organizational outcomes (Doh & Quigley, 2014). Responsible leadership is critical in developing workplace social norms of responsibility, which inspires employees to collaborate and support one another to achieve performance goals (Syed et al., 2021). A responsible leader prefers to help people as a role model for employees, and how their leader arouses a sense of responsibility in them has a significant impact on the employees' helpful activities (Lin, 2006). As a result, responsible leaders can give better opportunities for employees to align their values with the organization's goals. Some existing studies have found a positive and significant relationship between responsible leadership and person-organization fit (Huang et al., 2005). Thus, we develop the hypothesis below:
H2: Responsible leadership has a positive impact on person-organization fit.
Person-organization fit is also thought to have an impact on Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KSB), which is defined as the active interchange of shared ideas, experiences, and information among colleagues in order to develop long-term knowledge sharing that is beneficial to the business (Razak et al., 2016). Knowledge sharing entails trust in one's expertise and in one's personal and collegial relationships, as well as their influence on the personal satisfaction elicited by sharing contacts (Holste & Fields, 2010). Because an individual's appropriateness for an organization can foster ease of adaption with colleagues and external actors, person-organization fit is a crucial component (Schneider, 1987). If a continuous organizational culture that accepts knowledge sharing behavior and encourages employees to debate their ideas with coworkers is implemented, the employees' values and the organization's values will be better aligned (Akram et al. 2020). Person-organization fit is expected to boost organizational members' confidence in knowledge sharing interactions. Employees' willingness to share their expertise is an unavoidable requirement for creating and utilizing knowledge, without which the organization's success is jeopardized. According to Han et al. (2010), it is critical to guarantee that people share tacit knowledge in order for the company to succeed. Haider & Tehseen (2022) examined various problems in terms of information sharing attitudes. The first is employee motivation to share their tacit knowledge. The second dilemma is the free rider problem, which refers to achieving collaboration among self-interested persons, and the third dilemma is about increasing information transmission efficiency (Allal-Chérif, & Bidan, 2017). On the basis of prior research investigations, Han et al. (2010) concluded that employees with a sense of psychological ownership have an altruistic spirit, which is a significant precursor of a knowledge sharing attitude, and psychological ownership is a product of person-organization fit. Studies have found that person-organization fit is favorably correlated with information sharing aspects (Sudibjo & Prameswari, 2021; Wahyudi, 2019; Saleem & Ambreen, 2011; Muthusamy, 2009). As a result, 'we propose the following hypothesis:
H3: Person-organization fit has a positive impact on knowledge sharing behavior.
The possibility that person-organization fit mediates the relationship between responsible leadership and knowledge sharing behavior is supported by the third hypothesis, which, when combined with the second (that responsible leadership is positively related to person-organization fit), is consistent with the possibility that person-organization fit mediates the relationship between responsible leadership and knowledge sharing behavior. Despite the fact that this mediation effect has yet to be empirically tested, it is consistent with studies examining other mediators of the leadership-employee outcomes association (Valentine et al., 2006). For example, Darnold et al., (2005) discovered that responsible leadership is a likely positive factor in person-organization fit, which could impact knowledge sharing behavior. Employee beliefs are central to responsible leadership. For instance, the degree to which employee opinions are valued, and the extent to which the leaders are concerned about employee perceptions, were expected to have a positive impact in motivating employees to share their knowledge with others (Valentine et al. 2006; Robinson et al., 2012). Kaptein (2008) concluded that one of the virtues on which an ethical society is formed is supportability. Sharma et al. (2009) also discovered that perceived fairness mediated the link between leadership and organizational commitment. Furthermore, because employees are exposed to virtuousness and encouraged to share their knowledge (Mele´, 2009), there is the potential to build intraorganizational social capital, facilitating communication, cooperation, and strong relationships (Mahmoud et al. 2022), and resulting in attachment and attraction to virtuous actors (Bolino et al., 2002). Both Mulki et al. (2008) and Jaramillo et al. (2006) investigated the potential mediating function of person-organization fit in different variables. Thus, based on the above few studies that have found the mediating role of person-organization fit, we also assume that that the responsible leadership has an impact on knowledge sharing behavior through the mediating role of person-organization fit. This is because, when employees perceive that their values fit with the values of the organization, only then will the responsible leaders be able to create a favorable environment for them and be able to motivate them to share knowledge with others. This leads to the development of below hypothesis:
H4: Person-organization fit mediates the impact of responsible leadership on knowledge sharing.
Organizational culture is reflected in its members' shared values and beliefs, and it is manifested in the organization's goals and the methods employed to attain them, such as the firm's structure (Hofstede, 1994). The collective personality of a university, college, or other organization has been termed as university culture (Shian et al., 2022). It has also been defined as the atmosphere formed by individuals' social and professional contacts at the university. In addition, culture has an important influence in establishing “what the institutions are and what they may become” (Norton, 1984). The relationships that people have with their organizations are referred to as person-organization fit. Person-organization fit, according to Kristof (1996), occurs when at least one party meets the demands of the other and/or shares similar features. While person-organization fit encompasses numerous variables such as values, needs, skills, and personality, other studies have concentrated just on the values component (Amos and Weathington, 2008). For example, Chatman (1989) proposed that there would be higher levels of person-organization fit if the individual's values aligned with the organization's values. Individuals deliberately gravitate towards organizations where they believe their values will be congruent with those of the organization. Individuals learn the organization's ideals and conventions through socialization processes (Chatman, 1989). If the person-organization fit is regarded to be poor, and the organization's values are strong, the individual's values may evolve and become more aligned with that of the organization. Most empirical research has focused on the values component of person-organization fit, as defined by Chatman (1989). Strong person-organization fit has repeatedly been linked to positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, such as higher work satisfaction, commitment (Mahmoud et al., 2021a), and OCB, as well as lower turnover (Hoffman & Woehr, 2006). Schneider (1987) claimed that people are drawn to, and choose, groups that share their ideals. Recently, academics have put a positive gloss on person-organization fit by claiming that people are drawn to companies that perform ethically (Coldwell et al., 2008). Organizational culture has been used as a moderator for different types of leadership and their outcomes (Alneyadi et al., 2019; Hamzah et al., 2013). Nevertheless, we do assume that higher educational institute culture could positively moderate the impact of responsible leadership on person-organization fit, because responsible leadership will be more influential on person-organization fit when the culture of institute becomes aligned with the values of the person. In order words, responsible leadership of HODs, Deans and others in HEIs has stronger impact on person-organization fit with the institutional culture which will represent the values of employees. In light of this perspective on corporate cultural values and the relevance of a person-organization fit in terms of the “match” of employer and employee (see Fig. 1), we propose:
H5: Higher educational institute culture has a moderating role for the impact of responsible leadership and person-organization fit such that impact of responsible leadership on person-organization fit is higher when the higher educational institute culture is positive.
It is difficult to gather data for the whole population due to restricted resources and inevitable time restrictions (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 1986). As a result, data were gathered and analyzed using a purposive sampling method (Etikan et al., 2016). The data were collected from teachers, heads of department and management staff from universities located in different cities of China. The data were gathered between August 2021 and February 2022. The data were gathered at one time and, therefore, the study is cross-sectional. To maintain confidentiality, the names of the universities are not disclosed. The sample size for this research is 295 respondents, since data were collected during the Covid-19 epidemic and so relied on respondents’ willingness to complete the questionnaire. The first author visited the universities and sought permission to complete the research. Because of COVID-19, there have been a few universities closed; therefore, data were also collected online. 400 questionnaires were distributed, and 295 respondents returned the complete surveys with a list of questions. Harman's single factor test is performed after data collection to find common method variance; the result of extraction sums of squared loading is 24.38% of variance, which is less than 50%; hence, there is no common method biased problem in the data (Tehseen, Ramayah & Sajilan, 2017).The response rate was quite promising at 73.75%, during the challenging times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 1 illustrates that, of the respondents, 57.6% were men and 42.4% were women. The vast majority of responders to educational studies are MPhil/MS and Ph.D. holders. Lastly, the majority of respondents have work experience of 6 to 10 or greater than 11 years.
Descriptive statistics.
Data was gathered with the use of questionnaires collected, adopted from prior studies. In order to conduct a larger-scale investigation, the pilot study was designed to confirm that the questionnaire was reliable (Van Teijlingen & Hundley, 2010). The questionnaire has a total of 32 items. In terms of the independent variable, a 6-item scale adopted from Lin et al. (2020) with a Cronbach alpha (α) reliability of 0.870 was utilized to examine responsible leadership. Sudibjo et al. (2021) designed a 7-item scale to quantify person–organization fit as a mediator variable, with an alpha reliability value of 0.847. The dependent variable knowledge-sharing behavior was measured using a 7-item scale adopted from Sudibjo et al. (2021), with an alpha reliability of 0.878, and a 12-item scale developed by HA (2020) was used to measure the moderating variable higher educational institute culture, with an alpha reliability of 0.925. We utilized a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Agree), and 5 (Strongly Agree). It is the best tool for gathering information since it facilitates the collection of quantitative data in an effective and easy manner. Cronbach alpha was used to assess the reliability of latent variables. Cronbach alpha values for all variables were more than 0.70, indicating that reliability greater than 0.7 is regarded satisfactory (Taber, 2018). The Cronbach alpha test results are shown in Table 2.
Measurement model.
| Constructs/ Items | Factor Loading | α | CR | AVE | Author |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responsible Leadership | 0.870 | 0.905 | 0.625 | Lin et al. (2020) | |
| My supervisor often enables communication by exemplifying positive talks (positive communication). | 0.854 | ||||
| My supervisor is concerned about employee emotion (positive climate). | 0.848 | ||||
| My supervisor develops quality social relationships in the workplace (positive connection). | 0.841 | ||||
| My supervisor is capable of inspiring employees (positive calling). | 0.834 | ||||
| My supervisor is responsible for achieving positive change in the firm (positive demonstration). | 0.855 | ||||
| My supervisor shows the importance of being responsible in the workplace (positive demonstration). | 0.404 | ||||
| Person–Organization Fit | 0.847 | 0.903 | 0.627 | Sudibjo et al. (2021) | |
| I fit into the work environment within this university. | 0.838 | ||||
| I know the purpose of this university. | 0.892 | ||||
| I align with the purpose of this university. | 0.844 | ||||
| I am willing to follow what the university does to achieve its goals. | 0.857 | ||||
| I am aware of the values embraced by the university. | 0.824 | ||||
| I believe in the values of this university. | 0.869 | ||||
| I make a positive contribution to the university. | 0.877 | ||||
| Knowledge-Sharing Behavior | 0.878 | 0.905 | 0.586 | Sudibjo et al. (2021) | |
| I often acquire new knowledge from co-workers. | 0.878 | ||||
| I often share the knowledge I have with colleagues. | 0.858 | ||||
| Knowledge exchange between individuals is very likely to occur within this university. | 0.703 | ||||
| There are many opportunities to exchange knowledge with colleagues. | 0.883 | ||||
| Technology plays an important role in the exchange of knowledge between colleagues. | 0.859 | ||||
| Management plays an important role in the exchange of knowledge. | 0.544 | ||||
| When I gain new knowledge, I want to learn more and develop it. | 0.534 | ||||
| Higher Educational Institute Culture | 0.925 | 0.936 | 0.573 | HA (2020) | |
| Mission | |||||
| The university has a clear strategy that gives specific meaning, purpose and direction to the work | 0.748 | ||||
| Leaders always create ambitious goals | 0.739 | ||||
| The university has a long-term vision to produce motivation for all employees | 0.794 | ||||
| Involvement | |||||
| The university regularly increases skills training sessions to motivate employees to participate in the work | 0.778 | ||||
| The university appreciates teamwork in the process of work completion | 0.724 | ||||
| Employees have the right to propose ideas about how to work and their rights and benefits at the university | 0.754 | ||||
| Adaptability | |||||
| The university can adapt quickly to the changing business environment | 0.830 | ||||
| The university quickly understands and responds to student demands both at present and in the future | 0.798 | ||||
| The university always grasp market changes accurately | 0.757 | ||||
| Consistency | |||||
| The departments, divisions and units of the university can collaborate well to achieve common goals | 0.574 | ||||
| The university always has general rules on how to perform the work | 0.802 | ||||
| The university appreciates its employees who have a high sense of compliance with work regulations | 0.743 |
Abbreviation: Cronbach's Alpha (α), Composite Reliability (CR); Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
The data were then bootstrapped to 5000 samples using Smart-PLS 3 software to generate estimates of the sampling distribution's appropriateness and population standard errors to guarantee that the sample data accurately represented the population (Purwanto & Sudargini, 2021). The multivariate fact-based examination included the following tests: factor loading, convergent validity, discriminant validity checked by Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT- Ratio) and structural equation model examination by calculation of explained predictive relevance (Q2), variance (R2) and effect size (f2) (Hair et al., 2017).
ResultsThe data were analyzed quantitatively using the partial least squares (PLS)–structural equation modelling (SEM) technique. Conventional sample data was employed since the PLS-SEM technique does not need a traditional assumption test for the PLS-SEM method (Hair et al., 2017). The latent nature of the variables precluded direct measurement; hence the PLS-SEM approach was used (Ramayah et al., 2018). As a result, existing theories are used to measure the variables of interest. People–organization fit is both exogenous and endogenous, and knowledge-sharing behavior is a dependent and an endogenous variable in this study's emphasis on latent variables. Responsible leadership and higher educational institute culture are exogenous variables. This approach includes factor loadings, Cronbach's alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) measurements (Shrestha, 2021). As previously stated, when one item of a construct is related to other items of the same construct, this is known as convergent validity. There are many ways to evaluate this, including factor loadings, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). Factor loadings must have a value larger than 0.70 in order to be considered significant. Items with factor loadings in the range of 0.40 to 0.70 should only be deleted if removing them boosts composite reliability or the AVE values (Hair, Howard, & Nitzl, 2020). Thus, all estimates of factor loadings, CR, and AVE exceeded the specified cut-off requirements; as a result, the measurement model has convergent validity, as illustrated in Table 2.
A model's constructs are considered to have discriminant validity if they are distinct from each other (i.e., both constructs are not assessing the same phenomenon). Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) is defined as the average correlation of the indicators across distinct constructs and their associated constructs, as measured by the HTMT (Ab Hamid et al., 2017). A threshold level of 0.90 is seen in studies, while constructs that are conceptually comparable have a threshold level of 0.85 or lower (Hair, Howard, & Nitzl, 2020). Models with constructs that are unrelated to each other have a threshold level of 0.85 or lower. Table 3 shows that not a single result was larger than 0.85, which is a significant finding. As a result, the discriminant validity of the test was proven.
Discriminant Validity Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).
| Constructs | HEIC | KSB | POF | RL | RL * HEIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HEIC | |||||
| KSB | 0.557 | ||||
| POF | 0.541 | 0.970 | |||
| RL | 0.491 | 0.765 | 0.817 | ||
| RL * HEIC | 0.095 | 0.196 | 0.218 | 0.150 |
Abbreviations: Responsible Leadership (RL); Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KSB); Person–Organization Fit (POF); Higher Educational Institute Culture (HEIC).
Following the completion of the measurement model, the structural equation model is computed. We used the methods proposed by Ramayah et al. (2018) to investigate the mediating effects of POF and the moderating role of HEIC . Four particular criteria were utilized to examine both the direct and indirect impacts of structural equation models: To begin, estimate the amount of variance disclosed by all constructs by estimating the level of R2 for endogenous latent variables (Hair et al., 2017). Although the satisfactory estimate of R2 relies on the research environment (Cohen, 1988), the values of 0.26, 0.13, and 0.09 indicate high, moderate, and low levels, respectively. However, in the current research, R2 values for endogenous variables in the direct impact model on KSB are 0.794, indicating that RL, POF and HEIC predicts a 79.4% change in KSB. Furthermore, the R2 for POF is 0.571, indicating that RL and HEIC predicts a 57.1% change in POF (see Fig.2). Table 4 demonstrates that the model has a good prediction accuracy. Secondly, to evaluate the predictive relevance (Q2), a cross-validation redundancy measure was also employed to assess the research model's relevance (Hair et al., 2017). Table 4 reveals the suitable estimates significance of the direct effect model since the value of Q2 is larger than zero, Q2=0.353 for the endogenous latent variable the direct RL, HEIC to POF, also Q2=0.457 for the indirect impact of RL, POF and HEIC to KSB.
Thirdly, effect size (f2) is the influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable in order to recognize how much the effect of the exogenous (independent variable) is visible to the endogenous (dependent variable) (Hair et al., 2017). The Cohen (1988) rule classifies effect sizes of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 as having small, medium, and large impacts, respectively. Table 5 shows that the impact size for RL to KSB is 0.035, RL to POF is 0.701, POF to KSB is 1.469 and the moderating variable HEIC on KSB is 0.801. Therefore, the effect sizes of these exogenous constructs on the endogenous construct are medium and large, respectively.
Results of the structural equations model.
Abbreviations: Responsible Leadership (RL); Knowledge Sharing Behavior (KSB); Person–Organization Fit (POF); Higher Educational Institute Culture (HEIC); Standard Deviation (S.D.).
The results show that H1, the direct impact of RL on KSB, is positive and significant (β = 0.120, p<0.01). Furthermore, H2 and H3, the direct impact of RL on POF (β = 0.617, p<0.000) and POF on KSB (β = 0.801, p<0.000), are also positive and significant. Therefore, all three direct hypotheses, H1, H2 and H3, were accepted. Finally, the indirect mediating effect of POF on the relationship between RL and KSB is positive and significant (β = 0.494, p<0.000), also greater than the direct effect. Furthermore, the moderating effect of HEIC is positive and significant on the relationship between RL and POF (β = 0.099, p<0.000), indicating that both indirect mediating and moderating hypotheses H4, and H5 were accepted.
DiscussionThis study has discussed the impact of responsible leadership on knowledge sharing with the mediating role of person-organization fit. This study has also investigated the moderating role of higher educational institutes’ culture for the impact of responsible leadership on knowledge sharing. The first hypothesis, i.e., H1, was supported due to the positive and significant impact found in results for the impact of responsible leadership on knowledge sharing. The result of this hypothesis was in line with some existing studies that have also resulted in a similar finding under various contexts (Lu et al., 2019; Bavik et al., 2017). Thus, it has been empirically proven that responsible leaders motivate the employees to share their knowledge in the context of HEIs. By sharing knowledge with colleagues, the academic staff can assist the junior staff members to equip themselves with the essential skills and knowledge required for achieving institutional goals. H2, related to the impact of responsible leadership on person-organization fit, was also supported, as was found by a few other researchers as well (Huang et al., 2005). This means that responsible leaders provide a more favorable environment for the employees where they perceive a better fit of their personal values. H3, which was regarding the impact of person-organization fit on knowledge sharing, was also supported in this study. The result of H3 is congruent to existing studies as well those which came up with similar findings in various contexts (Sudibjo & Prameswari, 2021; Wahyudi, 2019; Saleem & Ambreen, 2011; Muthusamy, 2009). Thus, the person-organization fit motivates the employees to share their knowledge, and their knowledge sharing behavior could play a vital role in achieving the institution's aims. Since the values of employees are perceived to be similar to the values of the institution, they thus feel more respected and valued in the organization and, therefore, are motivated to depict knowledge sharing behavior. H4, which hypothesized the mediating influence of person-organization fit, was also supported in this study. The finding of H4 is a new contribution of this study because the mediating impact of person-organization fit was never studied before by researchers regarding the impact of responsible leadership on knowledge sharing. However, the mediating result found in this study also provides empirical evidence that the person-organization fit can act as a mediator, as person-organization fit has been found as a mediator in different studies under various contexts (Mulki et al., 2008; Jaramillo et al., 2006). Since the strong relationship of responsible leadership and knowledge sharing behavior exists in the current studies, thus, this influence of responsible leadership on person-organization fit goes through the mechanism of person-organization fit. This means that responsible leaders can motivate the employees into sharing knowledge only when the employees perceive a better fit with the organization. H5 was relevant to the moderating impact of higher educational institutes’ culture for the impact of responsible leadership on person-organization fit; this was also found to be positive and significant in this study. This means that the impact of responsible leadership on person-organization fit is stronger when the higher educational institute's culture is positive and favorable. This is the new finding of this study, because higher educational institutes’ culture has not been investigated as moderator before for the influence of responsible leadership on person-organization fit, although this variable has been studied as a moderator in other contexts and was found as a positive moderator in existing literature (Alneyadi et al., 2019; Hamzah et al., 2013).
Theoretical implicationIn various aspects, the current investigation theoretically supports the literature. To begin with, the majority of previous research on leadership styles for knowledge sharing has included leadership, charismatic leadership, authentic leadership, ethical leadership, and transformational leadership. Previous research on leadership in the knowledge domain has revealed the necessity for more objective measures and experimental – and thus causal – analyses of proposed models, including responsible leadership. The current study successfully addresses this demand for responsible leadership and assesses its impact on employees' knowledge-sharing attitudes and behaviors in higher educational institutions. As a result, the new contribution is the link between responsible leadership and information sharing. The study's second theoretical contribution is a mediation investigation of person-organization fit for the impact of responsible leadership on information sharing attitudes and behavior. This is because previous research has only looked at the mediating effect of person-organization fit for other types of interactions, such as ethical culture and employee outcomes (Ruiz-Palomino et al., 2013), but not for responsible leadership and knowledge sharing attitudes and behaviors. Finally, this study's unique contributions include the moderating function of higher educational institute culture in the impact of responsible leadership on person-organization fit.
Practical implicationResponsible leadership has a favorable impact on information sharing in higher educational institutions, according to this study. Heads of Departments (HODs) and Deans can, thus, serve as role models for academic employees by exercising responsible leadership and encouraging constructive communication and relationships. HODs and Deans can also foster a positive social climate in the workplace by encouraging positive social contact and constructive debate. HODs and Deans can inspire staff to share knowledge for the organization by instilling the value of responsible leadership in their behavior. Secondly, this study provides empirical evidence of the role of person-organization fit in mediating the impact of responsible leadership on employee knowledge-sharing behaviors and attitudes. We recommend that HODs and Deans encourage mutual assistance since positive interpersonal interactions promote reciprocity, which promotes knowledge exchange. Likewise, the person-organization fit as a mediator directs the HR, HODs and Deans of higher educational institutes to recruit only those academic staff members whose personal values have good fit with the higher educational institute. Moreover, the positive moderating influence of institutional culture also provides practical implication for all HODs and Deans of higher educational institutes to develop a positive and favorable culture to facilitate the responsible leadership for person–organization fit. In other words, the responsible leaders of higher educational institutes may assess the person-organization fit in better ways when the institutional culture is positive and favorable.
Strengths, limitations and future directionsEvery study has space for growth, and no research is without restrictions. There are certain limitations to the current study. The first is that the information was acquired solely from higher educational institutes. As a result, data generalization is limited because different industries may have different organizational cultures. It is proposed that similar studies be conducted in the future for various industries, such as the banking, hotels, and manufacturing sectors. Aside from that, the current study is cross-sectional, and the education industry is always evolving. As a result, the current study will not reflect future business scenarios, limiting its generalizability. Future research should take a longitudinal approach. Following this, future researchers can use knowledge sharing to explore additional leadership traits such as authentic leadership, transactional leadership, ethical leadership, or transformational leadership, as we have done with responsible leadership. Due to time constraints, this study only looked at one mediator and moderator. In order to achieve more definite and full results, future research can improve the model and can identify new mediators for responsible leadership and knowledge sharing. Other moderators, such as personality factors, can also be examined by future researchers. Future scholars can go in a number of different paths from here. COVID-19′s rapid growth has wreaked havoc on people's lives, societal structures, livelihoods, and organizations all around the world. The COVID-19 pandemic is causing businesses to start adopting new frameworks to address new needs and difficulties, such as quick decision-making, staff productivity, and business continuity threats (Xie et al., 2020). Further research is needed to see how digital platforms may be used to facilitate the knowledge sharing behaviors in various contexts. In the COVID-19 context, additional research might look into the impact of digitization on knowledge-sharing within various contexts.