Ethical leadership and employee knowledge sharing: Exploring dual-mediation paths

By Y. Bavik, P. Tang, Ruodan Shao, L. W. Lam. 2017

291 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Information Systems and Management, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7d9d3fdfa1e9a77e590a76db6dd1507c108a2868

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Information Systems and Management

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

Interpreting the impact of knowledge management processes on organizational performance in Chinese higher education: mediating role of knowledge worker productivity (2020, background): “Researchers have called for empirical investigation of KOL as a facilitator to KM processes (Donate and de Pablo 2015; Ramezani et al. 2017) since, there is significantly limited research on the impact of leadership on knowledge-related practices (Bavik et al. 2018).”
Respectful leadership and followers’ knowledge sharing: A social mindfulness lens (2020, background): “Existing research has provided initial evidence that different leadership styles—for example, transformational, empowering, and ethical leadership—can facilitate knowledge sharing (Bavik et al., 2018; Dong et al., 2017; Jiang and Chen, 2018; Liu and Li, 2018; Srivastava et al., 2006).”
Can altruistic leadership prevent knowledge-hiding behaviour? Testing dual mediation mechanisms (2020, background): “…factors that promote KS, including environmental factors (e.g., organisational climates, leadership, social interaction culture, and conflict; Bavik et al., 2018; Bock et al., 2005; Carmeli et al., 2013; Connelly & Kelloway, 2003; Kakar, 2018), motivational factors (e.g., attitude towards…”
Ethical Leadership and Team Ethical Voice and Citizenship Behavior in the Military: The Roles of Team Moral Efficacy and Ethical Climate (2020, methodology): “…by the uncorrelated method factor was 8.17%, which is much less than the average 25% of method variance observed in behavioral research (Babalola et al., 2019; Bavik et al., 2018; Fuller et al., 2016; Greenbaum et al., 2015; Latorre et al., 2016; Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007; Williams et al., 1989).”