CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83Knowledge Management and SharingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorTeam Dynamics and Performance

‘Let’s share!’The mediating role of employees’ self-determination in the relationship between transformational and shared leadership and perceived knowledge sharing among peers

Open access
Coun, Martine J.H., Peters, Pascale, Blomme, Rob J.·2019·European Management Journal
DOI 10.1016/j.emj.2018.12.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.emj.2018.12.001

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Satisfying an individual's need for autonomy can stimulate their intention to share.

    “Martine and colleagues found in their research on employee knowledge-sharing behaviors that satisfying an individual's need for autonomy can stimulate their intention to share [63,64].”

    From What Influences Users’ Intention to Share Works in Designer-Driven User-Generated Content Communities? A Study Based on Self-Determination Theory (2023) · cites this paper as [63]

    Section 5.1.2 reports that satisfaction of employees’ need for autonomy enhances their perceptions of knowledge sharing among peers. That supports the autonomy–knowledge-sharing link, but the study’s finding concerns perceptions of peers’ behavior, not an individual’s own intention to share. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. Allen, S. A., & Ofahengaue Vakalahi, H. F. (2013). My team members are every- where! A critical analysis of the emerging literature on dispersed teams. Administration in Social Work, 37(5), 486e493.
  2. Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., & Ramirez, R. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), 479e490.
  3. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411e423.
  4. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in orga- nizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421e458.
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359e373.
  6. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285e309.
  7. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press;
  8. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19e31.
  9. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  10. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2010). The transformational model of leadership. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era (2nd ed., pp. 76e86). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
  11. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
  12. Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal, 14, 14e21.
  13. Bryant, S. E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 32e44.
  14. Cabrera, A., Collins, W. C., & Salgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245e264.
  15. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 50(5), 1217e1234.
  16. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2), 295e336.
  17. Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive the- ories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872e1888.
  18. Coradi, A., Heinzen, M., & Boutellier, R. (2015). Designing workspaces for cross- functional knowledge-sharing in R & D: The "co-location pilot" of novartis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(2), 236e256.
  19. Coun, M. J. H., Gelderman, C. J., & P erez Arendsen, J. (2015). Shared leadership and proactivity in New Ways of Working (In Dutch: Gedeeld leiderschap en pro- activiteit in Het Nieuwe Werken). Gedrag en Organisatie, 28(4), 356e379.
  20. De Cooman, R., Stynen, D., Van den Broeck, A., Sels, L., & De Witte, H. (2013). How job characteristics relate to need satisfaction and autonomous motivation: Implications for work effort. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(6), 1342e1352.
  21. De Paoli, D., & Ropo, A. (2015). Open-plan offices-the response to leadership chal- lenges of virtual project work? Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 17(1), 63e74.
  22. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19e43.
  23. Dong, Y., Bartol, K. M., Zhang, Z. X., & Li, C. (2017). Enhancing employee creativity via individual skill development and team knowledge sharing: Influences of dual- focused transformational leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 439e458.
  24. Ehnert, W. Harry, & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Sustainability and human resource management: Developing sustainable business organizations (pp. 247e272). Heidelberg: Springer.
  25. Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 459e478.
  26. Ellison, N. B., Gibbs, J. L., & Weber, M. S. (2015). The use of enterprise social network sites for knowledge sharing in distributed organizations the role of organiza- tional affordances. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(1), 103e123.
  27. Fausing, M. S., Joensson, T. S., Lewandowski, J., & Bligh, M. (2015). Antecedents of shared leadership: Empowering leadership and interdependence. The Leader- ship & Organization Development Journal, 36(3), 271e291.
  28. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 328e388.
  29. Foss, N. J., Pedersen, T., Reinholt Fosgaard, M., & Stea, D. (2015). Why comple- mentary HRM practices impact performance: The case of rewards, job design, and work climate in a knowledge-sharing context. Human Resource Manage- ment, 54(6), 955e976.
  30. Gagn e, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331e362.
  31. Garbers, Y., & Konradt, U. (2014). The effect of financial incentives on performance: A quantitative review of individual and team-based financial incentives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 102e137.
  32. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139e152.
  33. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414e433.
  34. Han, S. J., Lee, Y., Beyerlein, M., & Kolb, J. (2018). Shared leadership in teams: The role of coordination, goal commitment, and knowledge sharing on perceived team performance. Team Performance Management: International Journal, 24(3/ 4), 150e168 .
  35. Han, S. H., Seo, G., Li, J., & Yoon, S. W. (2016). The mediating effect of organizational commitment and employee empowerment: How transformational leadership impacts employee knowledge sharing intention. Human Resource Development International, 19(2), 98e115.
  36. Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  37. Hau, Y. S., & Kang, M. (2016). Extending lead user theory to users' innovation related knowledge sharing in the online user community: The mediating roles of social capital and perceived behavioral control. International Journal of Information Management, 36(4), 520e530.
  38. Henseler, J. (2010). On the convergence of the partial least squares path modeling algorithm. Computational Statistics, 25(1), 107e120.
  39. Henseler, J. (2017). Bridging design and behavioral research with variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 178e192.
  40. Hetland, J., Hetland, H., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Andreassen, C. S., & Pallesen, S. (2015). Psychological need fulfillment as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and positive job attitudes. Career Development In- ternational, 20(5), 464e481.
  41. Hiller, N. J., Day, D. V., & Vance, R. J. (2006). Collective enactment of leadership roles and team effectiveness: A field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 387e397.
  42. Hoch, J. E. (2013). Shared leadership and innovation: The role of vertical leadership and employee integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 159e174.
  43. Hoch, J. E. (2014). Shared leadership, diversity, and information sharing in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(5), 541e564.
  44. Houghton, J. D., Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2003a). Self-leadership and super- leadership: The heart and art of creating shared leadership in teams. In C. L. Pearce, & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (p. 123-140). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications.
  45. Houghton, J. D., Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., Courtright, S., & Stewart, G. L. (2015). Sharing is caring: Toward a model of proactive caring through shared leader- ship. Human Resource Management Review, 25(3), 313e327.
  46. Hsu, M. H., Ju, T. L., Yen, C. H., & Chang, C. M. (2007). Knowledge sharing behavior in virtual communities: The relationship between trust, self-efficacy, and outcome expectations. International Journal of Human-computer Studies, 65(2), 153e169.
  47. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424e453.
  48. Kang, M., & Lee, M. J. (2017). Absorptive capacity, knowledge sharing, and innova- tive behaviour of R&D employees. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 29(2), 219e232.
  49. Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and per- formance: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 543e555.
  50. Lagerstr€ om, K., & Andersson, M. (2003). Creating and sharing knowledge within a transactional team e the development of a global business system. Journal of World Business, 38(2), 84e95.
  51. Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and orga- nizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179e228.
  52. Llopis, O., & Foss, N. J. (2016). Understanding the climateeknowledge sharing relation: The moderating roles of intrinsic motivation and job autonomy. Eu- ropean Management Journal, 34(2), 135e144.
  53. Luo, X. (2002). Trust production and privacy concerns on the internet: A framework based on relationship marketing and social exchange theory. Industrial Mar- keting Management, 31(2), 111e118.
  54. Mabey, C., & Zhao, S. (2017). Managing five paradoxes of knowledge exchange in networked organizations: New priorities for HRM? Human Resource Manage- ment Journal, 27(1), 39e57.
  55. Mueller, J. (2014). A specific knowledge culture: Cultural antecedents for knowledge sharing between project teams. European Management Journal, 32(2), 190e202.
  56. Neck, C. P., Houghton, J. D., Sardeshmukh, S. R., Goldsby, M., & Godwin, J. L. (2013). Self-leadership: A cognitive resource for entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Busi- ness and Entrepreneurship, 26(5), 463e480.
  57. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  58. Park, H., Ribi ere, V., & Schulte, W. D., Jr. (2004). Critical attributes of organizational culture that promote knowledge management technology implementation success. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), 106e117.
  59. Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. The Academy of Management Execu- tive, 18(1), 47e57.
  60. Peters, P., Den Dulk, L., & Van der Lippe, T. (2009). The effects of time-spatial flexibility and new working conditions on employees' work-life balance: The Dutch case. Community, Work & Family, 12(3), 279e298.
  61. Peters, P., Ligthart, P. E., Bardoel, A., & Poutsma, E. (2016). 'Fit for telework'? Cross- cultural variance and task-control explanations in organizations' formal tele- work practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(21), 2582e2603.
  62. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531e544.
  63. Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face- to-face and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 343e357.
  64. Shane Wood, M., & Fields, D. (2007). Exploring the impact of shared leadership on management team member job outcomes. Baltic Journal of Management, 2(3), 251e272.
  65. Siemsen, E., Roth, A. V., Balasubramanian, S., & Anand, G. (2009). The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 11(3), 429e447.
  66. Spreitzer, G. M., Cameron, L., & Garrett, L. (2017). Alternative work arrangements: Two images of the new world of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psy- chology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 473e499.
  67. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in man- agement teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239e1251.
  68. Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdepen- dence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 617e640.
  69. Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3), 277e294.
  70. Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Peters, P., & Kelliher, C. (2014). New ways of working and employability. Towards an agenda for HRD. In R. F. Poell, T. S. Rocco, & G. L. Roth (Eds.), The Routledge companion to human resource development (pp. 542e551). London, UK: Routledge.
  71. Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012). The changing ecology of teams: New directions for team research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 301e315.
  72. Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115e131.
  73. Xiao, Y., Zhang, X., & Ord oñez de Pablos, P. (2017). How does individuals' exchange orientation moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing? Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(6), 1622e1639.
  74. Yoon, C., & Rolland, E. (2012). Knowledge-sharing in virtual communities: Famil- iarity, anonymity and self-determination theory. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(11), 1133e1143.
  75. Zhu, W., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2009). Moderating role of follower char- acteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement. Group & Organization Management, 34(5), 590e619.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coun, M. J. H., Peters, P., & Blomme, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Coun, Martine J.H.
ORCID
Venue
European Management Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
481-491
ISSN
0263-2373 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.emj.2018.12.001
OpenAlex
W2903701814
Cited by
83
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
FWCI
11.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Management Journal (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
shared leadership, transformational leadership, knowledge sharing, self-determination theory, basic psychological needs, need for autonomy, social exchange theory, peer knowledge sharing, R&D personnel, knowledge-intensive firms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review