Short Paper
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
250
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business Vol. 22, No. 3 (September-December 2020): 250-275
*Corresponding author’s e-mail: alamirinabeel@hotmail.com ISSN: PRINT 1411-1128 | ONLINE 2338-7238
http://journal.ugm.ac.id/gamaijb
Leadership Styles and Organizational Knowledge Management Activities:
A Systematic Review Nabeel Al Amiri*a, Rabiah Eladwiah Abdul Rahima, Gouher Ahmedb
aUniversity Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia bSkyline University College, United Arab Emirates
Abstract: Leaders play a critical role in the success or failure of their organizations. Leaders can be effective in implementing changes, building their organization’s capabilities, and improving its performance, or the opposite, they could be ineffective. In this systematic review, the authors aim to summarize the findings of previous quantitative research, published between the period from 2000 to 2018, to identify the effect of various leadership styles on organizational Knowledge management (KM) capabilities and activities. The authors reviewed 50 articles found in well- known databases included Emerald, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, Ebsco, Google Scholar, and others, concerning the impact of leadership when implementing KM in business organiza- tions. The review revealed that transformational, transactional, knowledge-oriented leadership, top executives, and strategic leadership have evidence of their constant and positive effect on the KM process. The authors encourage organizations to use a combination of those styles to max- imize the effect of leadership on KM. The authors also recommend conducting further studies on the effect of the remaining leadership styles, such as the ethical and servant leadership styles on KM and the other specific KM activities.
Keywords: leadership, leadership styles, knowledge, knowledge management, organization
JEL Classification: M000, M100, M150
Al Amiri et al
251
Introduction According to the literature, KM has
a significant impact on organizational per- formance and innovation. Researchers have found a strong link between KM and differ- ent aspects of management innovation that provide an organization with a competitive advantage. KM’s implementation in business organizations could be affected by sever- al factors, such as the organization culture, budget, infrastructure, technology, and lead- ership.
The impact of leadership on business and organizational management has been recognized as a significant factor that could make a difference in organizational perfor- mance. The academic gurus proposed sev- eral theories, such as the great man theory, various behavioral theories, Lewin’s theory, the contingency theory, the situational lead- ership theory, the transformational theory, the transactional theory (or managerial lead- ership), and many others.
Based on the existing literature, the out- come of implementing KM projects and pro- cesses in organizations varies according to the style of leadership. The evidence reveals a positive impact of leadership styles on KM, while other studies affirm a contradictory result. Therefore, this paper, as per the ex- isting literature, is the first systematic review that aims to identify the leadership styles and roles recognized as facilitators or inhibitors of building KM capabilities in organizations and the contribution of those styles and roles to the successful implementation of KM ac- tivities. Also, it aims to summarize the evi- dence and come up with recommendations to guide researchers in their future projects.
To achieve the study goal, the authors conducted a systematic literature review of
the quantitative studies published between the period from 2000 to 2018 concerning leadership and KM. Hence, we surveyed some well-known databases, including Emer- ald, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, Ebs- co, Google Scholar, and others.
Literature Review Leadership is one of the important top-
ics that are studied extensively by research- ers. They have come up with several different theories and definitions of the concept. To help readers understand the history of the evolution of leadership theories, we have summarized the most common theories in Table 1.
As can be noticed above, there is a prob- lem with the various definitions of leadership, as they are based on one isolated variable. Therefore, Winston and Patterson (2006) came up with a solution by reviewing over 90 variables that were used by previous re- searchers and academic gurus to define lead- ership, and then they proposed an integrated definition of leadership that is “A leader is one or more people who select, equips, trains, and influences one or more follower(s) who have diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and fo- cuses the follower(s) on the organization’s mission and objectives, causing the follow- er(s) to willingly and enthusiastically expend their spiritual, emotional, and physical energy in a concerted coordinated effort to achieve the organization’s mission and objectives.”
Ribie`re1 and Sitar (2003) addressed the critical role of leadership in organizations that were willing to evolve their culture into a knowledge supporting culture and imple- ment successful KM activities. According to Bolden (2010), leadership, management, and organizational development are all parts of
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
252
one process for enhancing the capacity of organizations, and people, to improve their performance. According to the Center for Creative Leadership, leadership has several roles in developing an organization’s capa- bilities and implementing strategic changes. Leadership enables executive teams to collab- orate effectively to drive change and execute strategy, develop processes, skills, mindsets, and tools to navigate change together, ignite innovation across the organization, manage talent, and create the right culture.
On the other hand, the knowledge-based theory (Curado, 2006) of a firm, which is an
extension of the resource-based theory (Bar- ney, 1991), argued that knowledge is a unique strategic resource that does not depreciate the way traditional resources do. According to Polanyi (1966), knowledge, which is classi- fied as explicit knowledge is transmitted for- mally between people, while tacit knowledge is transmitted informally. Nonaka (1994) de- veloped the dynamic theory of organization- al knowledge’s creation, which proposed that organizational knowledge is created through a continuous exchange between tacit and ex- plicit knowledge via four mechanisms for in- teractions: socialization, combination, inter- nalization, and externalization.
Theory Description Great man theories or hero
Great man (hero) is a wise, gifted, noble-hearted man who stands behind an accom- plishment in the world as an outcome of thoughts that dwelt in him (Carlyle, 1840).
Lewin’s leadership theory and styles
It includes three popular leadership behavioral styles that are autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire (Lewin, Lippitt, and White, 1939).
Leadership behavior and theories
Those theories focus on how leaders behave toward a task, people, and participa- tion, rather than leadership traits (Vroom and Jago, 2007).
Fiedler’s contingency theory
It proposes an interaction of three variables that are leader-member relations, task structure, and leader’s positional power, as determinants for the extent of the situa- tional control that the leader has (Fiedler, 1964).
Situational leadership theory
The style to be used by leaders, such as telling, selling, participating, or delegating depends upon factors, such as the situation, the people, and the task (Blanchard and Hersey, 1969).
Transformational lead- ership
The theory is about the leadership that transforms people and organizations, and raises people to higher levels of motivation and morality. Vision, culture, values, development, teamwork all have meaning in transformational leadership (Fairholm, 2001).
Transactional leadership The theory is about persons who exercise the authority of their office under formal legality; they obey only the law, obligate others, and follow the principle of hierarchy (Weber, 1968, p. 238).
Servant leadership According to Robert Greenleaf (as cited in Essays, UK, 2018), the servant-leader- ship starts with the leader’s feeling to serve and, then, his role is changed to lead.
Authentic leadership According to Walumbwa et al., (2008), authentic leadership is positively related to ethical leadership and transformational leadership. It includes self-awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses, self-moral perspective, balanced processing, and being true.
Ethical leadership According to Brown, Trevino, and Harrison (2005), ethical leadership is the demonstration of appropriate conduct through communication, reinforcement, and decision-making.
Table 1: The most common leadership theories
Al Amiri et al
253
Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney (1999) proposed two main KM strategies; firstly, the personalization strategy which theorized that tacit knowledge is shared through conversa- tions and direct contact between people, and secondly, the codification strategy which de- scribed the process of conversion of knowl- edge into a resource that can be used later by people.
The evolution of KM in the last 20 years encouraged many authors to find an appro- priate definition that explains the concept. Alavi and Leidner (2001, p. 114) defined KM as a process that involves various activ- ities; minimally it includes the processes of creating, storing and retrieving, transferring, and applying knowledge. In his study, Heisig (2009) summarized the six most frequent- ly used KM activities that are knowledge transfer, creation, application, storage, iden- tification, and acquisition. Also, he listed the critical success factors of KM including: 1) human-oriented factors that are culture, peo- ple, and leadership, 2) organizational process- es and structure, 3) technology’s infrastruc- ture and application, and 4) management processes, including strategies, goals, and outcome measurements.
Young (2010) highlighted four levels of successful KM; firstly, the individual (or personal) level includes personal knowledge, capabilities, experiences, competence, and development that is managed by the individ- uals themselves, by using tools, e.g., mobiles, wireless and web-based applications; second- ly, team KM is recognized as the collabora- tion between team members to produce new knowledge and transfer knowledge based on “share” or “pull” models of knowledge transfer; thirdly, the organizational KM that includes the introduction of a KM strategy and providing the infrastructure to imple-
ment the KM process across the entire orga- nization through the “top-down approach”; and fourthly the inter-organizational KM that adopts knowledge from outside resourc- es, e.g., co-partners, customers, suppliers, and competitors. Based on the above review, we will identify the various leadership styles and roles that fa- cilitate or inhibit an organization’s implemen- tation of its KM activities.
Methods The authors used the systematic review
method to answer the research question and achieve their objectives. The systematic re- view has a high academic value as it is a col- laboration of experts who synthesize strong evidence by reviewing and summarizing sec- ondary data that is relevant to the question under review. This systematic review was un- dertaken from November 2018 to April 2019.
Inclusion criteria of studies In this study, the authors have included
all the papers that met the following criteria:
1. The title of the article includes the word “leadership or leader” or an alternative word, e.g., “manager or supervisor.”
2. The title of the article includes the word “knowledge” or any of the KM activities, e.g., KM, creation, acquisition, identifica- tion, transfer, storage, or application.
3. Leadership is the independent variable or a moderating variable in the study, while KM is a dependent or a mediating variable.
4. Quantitative research. 5. Published in peer-review journals be-
tween the period 2000 and 2018.
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
254
Exclusion criteria of studies In this study, the authors excluded all the pa- pers that met the following criteria:
1. Research studied the effect of leadership on information systems and technology rather than KM activities.
2. Qualitative or mixed methodology re- search.
3. Non-English papers. 4. Papers published before 2000.
Search Strategy The authors used “leadership,” “leader-
ship styles,” “KM,” and “KM activities” as the key search words to search well-known databases included Emerald, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, Ebsco, Google Scholar, and others.
The authors used “AND & OR” as the main basic Boolean operators to combine keywords in a search. Thus, the main search strategy for this review was “leadership AND (knowledge AND/OR (knowledge manage- ment OR knowledge creation OR knowledge
acquisition OR knowledge identification OR knowledge transfer OR knowledge storage OR knowledge application). Additionally, the authors used the filters recommended by some databases to search for the relevant pa- pers.
Primary Research Methods The review process started by reviewing
the titles and abstracts of the selected articles against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then, the included articles were reviewed for the research question, method, sample, tools, and findings. In this study, the included arti- cles are classified in appendixes 1 and 2.
The Study Flow For this systematic review, the preferred
reporting items on systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram was used to map out the flow of information through the different phases of the system- atic review. PRISMA (Figure 1) maps out the number of records identified, screened for eligibility, included, and excluded as justified by the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Mo-
Figure 1: PRISMA study flow
Al Amiri et al
255
her, Liberati, Tetzlaff, and Altman, 2009). As a result, we ended up with 50 research papers.
The Study Coding Categories The authors organized the information
into tables, including several sub-sections. Those sub-sections included the author, the year of publication, the design, the sector, the country, the sample size, and the findings. The first author of the study analyzed all the arti- cles and organized the data in the tables. The second and third authors double-checked the results and validated the conclusion and the recommendations.
Results Paper’s Characteristics
Appendix 1 presents the authors of the included research papers, their year of pub- lication, journals’ names, databases, research design, countries, industries, and samples. An analysis of the contents of Table 1 shows that the number of published papers that are rel- evant to the systematic review’s question has significantly increased with time. According to the review, 7 (14%) of the research papers were published between 2001 and 2009, 16 (32%) between 2010 and 2014, and 27 (54%) between 2015 and 2019. The authors found 26 (52%) of those papers in Google Scholar, Emerald had 11 (22%), DirectScience con- tained 3 (6%), Taylor and Francis had 2 (4%), and others held 8 (16%).
Those studies were conducted in nu- merous countries; 12 (24%) in Iran, 7 (14%) in Pakistan, 3 (6%) in Spain, 2 (4%) in Iraq, Taiwan, China, Indonesia, India, Nigeria, and Australia, and 1(2%) in the USA, Thailand, Korea, Croatia, Bangladesh, Singapore, UAE, Bahrain, Mongolia, the UK, the Netherlands, Malaysia, and 2 (4%) in multiple countries.
The studies also covered various indus- trial sectors: education 9 (18%), manufactur- ing 7 (14%), various-sized organizations 6 (12%), ICT 5 (10%), banking 3 (6%), gov- ernment 3 (6%), oil, gas, and thermopower 2 (4%), service 2 (4%), healthcare 2 (4%), research institutes 2 (4%), food industry 2 (4%), hotels 1 (2%), construction 1 (2%), consulting 1 (2%), technology 1 (2%), export processing zones 1 (2%), multimedia super corridor status firms 1 (2%), and a port com- pany 1 (2%). Concerning the methodology, all the papers were cross-sectional researches.
Regarding the size of the research’s samples, 2 (4%) included 1 to 50 participants, 4 (8%) 51 to 100, 6 (12%) 101 to 150, 4 (8%) 151 to 200, 12 (24%) 201 to 250, 11 (22%) 251 to 300, 3 (6%) 301 to 350, 2 (4%) 351 to 400, and 6 (12%) more than 400. Regard- ing the respondents’ positions, 27 (54%) of the sample were employees, 12 (24%) were at various levels, 5 (10%) were managers and supervisors, 4 (8%) senior managers, 1 (2%) experts, and 1 (2%) students.
Appendix 2 presents a summary of the research papers’ contents, including the lead- ership styles and roles, the KM activities, and the outcomes of the research. The analysis of the contents of Table 2 shows that 14 (28%) of the included papers studied trans- formational leadership style, 2 (4%) transac- tional style, 7 (14%) both transformational and transactional styles, 4 (8%) transforma- tional, transactional, and laissez-faire styles, 4 (8%) knowledge leadership, 3 (6%) leader- ship in general, 2 (4%) senior and strategic leadership, 1 (2%) leader-member exchange (LMX), 1 (2%) communicative and non-com- municative styles, 1 (2%) task-oriented and human-oriented styles and 11 (24%) studied multiple leadership styles, including reward- ing, directive, innovator, monitor, autocratic, democratic, consulting, counseling, telling,
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
256
selling, referent power, cognitive style, trust, empowering, authority, leadership traits, co- ercive power, legitimate power, encouraging, self-management, initiating structure, and consideration styles. See Figure 2 for the dis- tribution of studies according to the style.
Concerning the KM activities, Figure 3 also shows that 27 (54%) of the included pa- pers studied the KM activities in general, 19 (38%) knowledge sharing, 1 (2%) knowledge creation and application, 1 (2%) knowledge transfer, 1 (2%) knowledge acquisition, and 1 (2%) looked at knowledge slack, absorptive capacity, and tacitness.
Paper’s Contents Summary Transformational leadership
Regarding the systemic review’s ques- tion concerning the influence of leadership styles and roles on KM, the authors found in 12 studies that transformational leadership had a positive, significant correlation with the entire KM capability and its various ac- tivities, such as knowledge creation, transfer, utilization, retention, integration, and others (Aung and Vinitwatanakhun, 2018; Farooqi,
Gohar, Nazish and Ahmad, 2017; Uddin, Fan and Das, 2017; Nouri, Mousavi and Soltan, 2016; Hayat, Maleki Hasanvand, Nikakhlag and Dehghani, 2015; Birasnav, 2014; Gelard, Boroumand and Mohammadi, 2014; Noruzy, Dalfard, Azhdar, Nazari-Shirkouhi and Re-
zazadeh, 2013; Allameh, Babaei, Chitsaz and Gharibpoor, 2012; Analoui, Doloriert and Sambrook, 2012; Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011; Crawford, 2005). Another study found that transformational leadership had a posi- tive moderating effect on the relationship be- tween KM and organizational effectiveness (Chi, Lan, and Dorjgotov, 2012).
On the other hand, the effects of trans- formational leadership were studied on par- ticular KM activities. Eight studies into the effect of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing found that transforma- tional leadership had a direct, significant, and positive impact on knowledge sharing (Al-Husseini and Elbeltagi, 2018; Park and Kim, 2018; Le and Lei, 2017; Mahmood and Khattak, 2017; Imdad Ullah, Bin Ab Hamid and Shahzad, 2016; Al-Husseini and Dosa, 2016; Akpotu and Jasmine, 2013; Mushtaq
*Some studies have included more than one leadership styles Figure 2: Relevant papers’ distribution according to leadership roles and styles*
Al Amiri et al
257
and Bokhari, 2011). Another study found a significant relationship of transformational leadership with the internal component of knowledge sharing (Chen and Barry, 2006).
Some components of transformational leadership, particularly individual’s consid- eration and individual’s inspirational impact positively on knowledge sharing activities, while the intellectual stimulation and inspira- tional motivation do not significantly encour- age activities related to knowledge sharing (Rawung, Wuryaningrat, and Elvinita, 2015). Furthermore, the idealized influence is sig- nificant only when considered with social- ization, the intellectual stimulation leadership is significantly correlated with all the dimen- sions of knowledge sharing (socialization, externalization, combination, and internal- ization), and the individualized consideration is significant for knowledge externalization (Bradshaw, Chebbi, and Oztel, 2015).
Furthermore, a few studies revealed that transformational leadership had a positive ef- fect on negotiation, which is a component of knowledge acquisition (Politis, 2001), while leadership constructs including emotional in- telligence, leadership traits, and transforma- tion team (i.e. a team of experts who lead a project) significantly influence the transfer of
knowledge (İdris, Ali, and Godwin, 2015) and transformational leadership positively affects all the strategic variables, including knowl- edge slack, absorptive capacity, and tacit- ness directly and indirectly (Garcı´a-Morales, Llore´ns-Montes, and Verdu´-Jover, 2008).
Transactional leadership Transactional leadership, another com-
mon leadership style, was found in four stud- ies has a significant, positive relationship with KM’s capabilities and activities (Farooqi, Go- har, Nazish, and Ahmad, 2017; Ghanbari and Abedzadeh, 2016; Hayat, Maleki Hasanvand, Nikakhlag and Dehghani, 2015; Analoui, Doloriert, and Sambrook, 2012; Nguyen and Mohamed, 2011). Furthermore, transactional leadership has a significant positive relation- ship with particular components of KM, which are knowledge’s externalization and internalization (Allameh, Babaei, Chitsaz, and Gharibpoor, 2012), and knowledge shar- ing (Hussain, Abbas, Lei, Haider, and Akram, 2017).
On the other hand, particular compo- nents of transactional leadership were found to positively affect knowledge management activities. Contingent rewards, one of the transactional dimensions, was found to have
Figure 3: Relevant papers’ distribution according to the KM’s activities and capabilities
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
258
a positive correlation with knowledge sharing (Farooq, Hanif, and Khan, 2018), with social- ization, and combination (Bradshaw, Chebbi, and Oztel, 2015), and with both internal and external knowledge sharing with customers (Chen and Barry, 2006). Also, the initiating structure, one of the transactional dimen- sions, was found to be positively correlated with communication and the problem of un- derstanding the components of knowledge acquisition, and negatively correlated with the personal traits, organization, and negotia- tion (Politis, 2001).
A few studies found no significant re- lationship between transactional leadership and KM (Aung and Vinitwatanakhun 2018; Crawford, 2005), transactional leadership with conversion and socialization (Allameh, Babaei, Chitsaz, and Gharibpoor, 2012), and the dimensions of the contingent reward with knowledge sharing (Rawung, Wuryanin- grat, and Elvinita, 2015).
Other Leadership Styles Regarding knowledge leadership, evi-
dence was found that knowledge-oriented leadership had a positive effect on KM (Jad et al., 2017; Sadeghi and Rad, 2018; Donate and De Pablo, 2015), and it also had positive ef- fects on knowledge creation and application (Safari and Azadehdel, 2015).
About the other leadership styles, some papers revealed that leadership, in general, correlated with KM (Kafashpoor, Shakoori, and Sadeghian, 2013) and had a positive moderating effect on the relationship be- tween knowledge sharing and organization- al learning (Khalid and Ahmed, 2015), while leadership behavior (i.e. leadership style, pro- fessional authority, and counseling skills) had a positive relation with KM (Tang, 2017). Furthermore, one study inferred that senior
managers’ attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control all had a posi- tive influence on the intention to encourage knowledge-sharing, which in turn is the main determinant of corporate knowledge-sharing behavior (Lin and Lee, 2004). Additionally, the strategic dimension of leadership had a positive relationship with the success of KM practices (Mas -Machuca, 2014).
Regarding the directive, participative, and supportive leadership styles, they had minor positive influences on KM (Aldulaimi, 2015). One prior study revealed that the di- rective and supportive styles had negative associations with KM practices, while the consulting and delegating styles had signifi- cant positive relationships with KM practices (Singh, 2008).
Regarding leadership powers, the ex- pert power had positive effects on both knowledge’s acquisition and dissemination, the reward power had a positive effect on knowledge dissemination in small firms, the legitimate power had a negative effect on knowledge acquisition, the coercive power had only a detrimental effect in small orga- nizations, whereas the referent power did not affect anything in the knowledge-based con- text (Jayasingam, Ansari, and Jantan, 2010).
The remaining papers studied a vari- ety of individual leadership styles, the men- tor leadership style was positively related to knowledge sharing behavior, whereas the fa- cilitator leadership style was not found to be related to knowledge sharing behavior (Jah- ani, Ramayah, and Effendi, 2011), the cogni- tive styles (i.e. radical and innovative-collab- orator styles) had a negative impact on KM practices; while the cognitive adaptor style had a positive impact on KM practices (Jain and Jeppesen, 2013), the leader-member ex- change (LMX) affected knowledge sharing
Al Amiri et al
259
and performance positively and meaningfully (Sharifkhani, Pool, and Asian, 2016), the tell- ing, selling, participating, and delegating styles had a significant influence on KM (Pringga- bayu and Ramdlany, 2017), the democratic style affected KM activities more successfully in small enterprises and enterprises oriented toward international markets, whereas the autocratic style affected KM more in large enterprises (Miloloža, 2018), the command leadership style had a great effect on the KM process, while the supportive leadership style positively and significantly affected three aspects of KM, which are knowledge gen- eration, sharing, and utilization (Akhavan, Zahedi, Dastyari, and Abasaltian, 2014), and the charismatic and human-oriented leader- ship (communicative styles) had a significant relationship with knowledge sharing, while the task-oriented (non-communicative) style had no relation with knowledge sharing (De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, and Oostenveld, 2010).
Discussion This study reviewed prior quantitative
research to identify the effect of various lead- ership styles and roles on KM’s capabilities in business organizations, summarize the find- ings, and come up with recommendations that could guide researchers in the future. The review found that the role and influ- ence of the transformational, transactional, knowledge-based leadership, and top execu- tives that were studied influenced KM’s ac- tivities in several contexts. Other leadership styles were also studied to a limited extent in a certain context.
However, the transformational leader- ship style was studied in more than half of the included research papers. One-fifth of the included papers pointed out strong evi-
dence for a positive effect of transformation- al leadership on knowledge management’s ca- pabilities in all contexts, as well as having a strong significant, positive effect on a partic- ular knowledge management activity, namely knowledge sharing. Besides, transformational leadership was also found to have a positive effect on knowledge acquisition, knowledge transfer, and strategic knowledge variables, such as knowledge slack, absorptive capacity, and tacitness in a limited number of studies.
Regarding transactional leadership, four studies provided a significant, positive re- lationship of transactional leadership with the entire capability and activities of KM. Also, particular components of transaction- al leadership were found to affect knowledge management activities positively, mainly the contingent rewards, which had a positive cor- relation with KM and knowledge sharing. On the other hand, a few studies revealed contra- dicting evidence that transactional leadership had no effect on KM and knowledge sharing.
Regarding the general leadership styles, three studies revealed a positive correlation between leadership and leadership behav- ior with KM and knowledge sharing. Three studies revealed a positive effect of knowl- edge leadership on KM, as well as knowledge creation and application, while another two studies provided positive evidence for the relationship between senior managers and strategic leadership on KM and knowledge sharing. Furthermore, the effects of many other leadership styles on KM had been stud- ied, but by an insufficient number of studies. The findings of those studies vary and, in our opinion, do not provide solid evidence for the effects of those styles on KM.
Lastly, the authors conclude that the transformational, transactional, knowledge-
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
260
based, top executives and strategic leadership were all found to have constant positive ef- fects on KM activities, although in different contexts.
Conclusion Based on the above discussion, this re-
view found that the transformational, trans- actional, knowledge-based, top executives and strategic leaderships have positive effects on KM activities. Thus, the authors argue that organizations should use a combination of all those leadership styles to maximize the effect of leadership on KM. In other words, orga- nizations should involve their top executives and strategic leadership, as well as transfor- mational and transactional leadership styles at all organizational levels, as independent variables to build an efficient KM capability and implement KM activities. Furthermore, the authors suggest that knowledge-orienta- tion could enhance the above-discussed rela- tionship if used as a moderating variable.
Recommendations The authors encourage researchers to
direct their future studies to fill the gaps in the literature and concentrate on the inade- quately examined leadership styles and KM activities. Furthermore, they should consid- er conducting longitudinal studies and using representative samples.
On the other hand, the authors encour- age interested researchers to conduct quanti- tative studies to examine the above-suggested model in various contexts. This will provide evidence of the effectiveness of the mod- el, or suggest new modifications, as well as confirming, or not, the generalizability of the model.
Limitations All those papers used a cross-section-
al design, some of those studies used small samples, and the papers did not consider sev- eral well-known leadership styles, such as the ethical and servant leadership style
References Akhavan, P., Zahedi, M. R., Dastyari, A., & Abasaltian, A. (2014). The effect of organizational
culture and leadership style on knowledge management in selected research organiza- tions, International Journal of Scientific Management and Development, 2(9), 432-440.
Akpotu, C., & Jasmine, T-A. (2013). Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing in ICT based organizations in Nigeria, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4 (12), 100-106.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Man- agement Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961.
Aldulaimi, S. H. (2015). Exploring the effect of organizational culture, leadership, and strategy on organizational effectiveness with mediating effect of knowledge management, Inter- national Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, 3(4), 1-19.
Al-Husseini, S., & Dosa, T. A. (2016). The Effects of Transformational Leadership on Process Innovation through Knowledge Sharing, International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 10(8), 2752-2759.
Al Amiri et al
261
Al-Husseini, S., & Elbeltagi, I. (2018). Evaluating the effect of transformational leader- ship on knowledge sharing using structural equation modelling: the case of Iraqi higher education, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(4), 506-517.doi: 10.1080/13603124.2016.1142119.
Allameh, S. M., Babaei, R. A., Chitsaz, A., & Gharibpoor, M. (2012). The study of relationship between leadership styles (transformational/ Transactional) and Knowledge Conversion Processes among Faculty Members in University, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(7), 46-54.
Analoui, B. D., Doloriert, C. H., & Sambrook, S. (2012). Leadership and knowledge manage- ment in UK ICT organisations, Journal of Management Development, 32(1), 4-17. https:// doi.org/10.1108/02621711311286892.
Aung, M. L., & Vinitwatanakhun, W. (2018). A study of the relationship between leadership style and knowledge management in Pan-Asia international school, Scholar: Human Sciences, 10(2), 38-45.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.
Birasnav, M. (2014). Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership, Journal of Business Research, 67, 1622–1629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbus- res.2013.09.006
Blanchard, K., & Hersey, P. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership, training and development journal, 23(5), 26-34.
Bolden, R. (2010). Leadership, management and organisational development. In: Gold, J., Thor- pe, R. and Mumford, A., eds. (2010) Gower Handbook of Leadership and Management Develop- ment. 5th ed. 117-132. Aldershot, UK: Gower
Bradshaw, R., Chebbi, M., & Oztel, H. (2015). Leadership and knowledge sharing, Asian Journal of Business Research, Special Issue. doi 10.14707/ajbr.150001
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning per- spective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97, 117−134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002
Carlyle, T., (2013). On heroes, hero worship, and the heroic in history (Sorensen D. & Kinser B., Eds.). New Haven, London: Yale University Press, (Original work published 1840)
Center of Creative Leadership (n.d.).Organizational leadership. Retrieved January 19, 2019 from https://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/organizational-leadership-cen- ter-for-creative leadership.pdf
Chen, L. Y., & Barry, B. F. (2006). Leadership Behaviors and Knowledge Sharing in Professional Service Firms Engaged in Strategic Alliances, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepre- neurship, 11(2), 51-69.
Chi, H.-K., Lan, C.-H., & Dorjgotov, B. (2012). The moderating effect of transformational leadership on knowledge management and organizational effectiveness, Social Behavior and Personality an International Journal, 40(6), 1015-1024. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2012.40.6.1015
Crawford, C. B. (2005). Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position on knowledge management, Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(6), 6-16. http://dx.doi.
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
262
org/10.1108/13673270510629927” Curado, C. (2006). The knowledge based-view of the firm: From theoritical orgins to fu-
ture implications. Retrieved 21 January, 2019 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar. org/3e41/145145cf61217ea38f536119d5d0074a2557.pdf
De Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A., & Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = Communication? The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes, J Bus Psychol, 25, 367–380. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2
Denyer, D. (n.d.). Appraise the quality of studies. Retrieved February 2nd, 2019 from http:// www.restore.ac.uk/logicofenquiry/logicofenquiry/gst/SR/stages/Pages/6Appraise- thequalityofstudies.html
Donate, M. J., & De Pablo, J. D. S. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowl- edge management practices and innovation, Journal of Business Research, 68, 360–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.022
Essays, UK (2018). A servant leadership analysis leadership essay. Retrieved from https:// www.ukessays.com/essays/leadership/a-servant-leadership-analysis-leadership-essay. php?vref=1
Fairholm, M. R. (2001). The themes and theory of leadership: James MacGregor Burns and the Philosophy of Leadership, The George Washington University, Center for Excellence in Municipal Management. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from https://www.researchgate. net/publication/283049025_Themes_and_Theories_of_Leadership
Farooq, M. I., Hanif, M. I., & Khan, M. A. (2018). Importance of empowering leadership, re- ward and trust towards knowledge sharing, International Journal of Management Excellence, 11(2), 1544-1552.
Farooqi, Y. A., Gohar, R., Nazish, A., & Ahmad, M. (2017). Impact of leadership styles on knowledge management practices in small and medium enterprises of Punjab (Pakistan), Information and Knowledge Management, 7(2), 15-20.
Fiedler, F.E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. Advanced Experimental So- cial Psychology, 1, 149-190.
Garcı´a-Morales, V. J., Llore´ns-Montes, F. J. and Verdu´ -Jover, A. J. (2008). The effects of trans- formational leadership on organizational performance through knowledge and innova- tion, British Journal of Management, 19, 299–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00547.x
Gelard, P., Boroumand, Z., & Mohammadi, A. (2014). Relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge management, International Journal of Information Science and Man- agement, 12(2), 67-82.
Ghanbari, A., & Abedzadeh, M. (2016). Relation between transactional leadership and knowledge management, Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 8(3S), 1388-1398.doi: http://dx. doi.org/10.4314/jfas.v8i3s.233
Hansen, M., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 106-116.
Hayat A, Maleki Hasanvand, M., Nikakhlag S., & Dehghani M. R. (2015). The role of transfor- mational leadership and its knowledge management processes. Journal of Health Manage- ment & Informatics, 2(2), 41-46.
Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge management - comparing 160 KM
Al Amiri et al
263
frameworks around the globe, Journal of Knowledge Management 13(4), 4-31.doi: 10.1108/13673270910971798
Hussain, S. T., Abbas, J., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Akram, T. (2017). Transactional leadership and organizational creativity: Examining the mediating role of knowledge sharing behavior, Cogent Business & Management, 4(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1361 663
İdris, K. M., Ali, K. N., & Godwin, A. U. (2015). Influence of organizational leadership on knowledge transfer in construction, Asian Social Science, 11(21), 102-110.doi: 10.5539/ass. v11n21p102
ImdadUllah, M., Bin Ab Hamid, K., & Shahzad, A. (2016). Impact of transformational leader- ship on knowledge sharing of employees and innovation capability in the dairy sector of Pakistan, Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 36(1), 87-98
Jad, S. M. M., Geravandi, S., Mohammadi, M. J., Alizadeh, R., Sarvarian, M., Rastegarimeh, B., Afkar, A. … Mohammad, H. (2017). The relationship between knowledge of leadership and knowledge management practices in the food industry in Kurdistan province, Iran, Data in Brief, 15, 155–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.09.031
Jahani, S., Ramayah, T., & Effendi, A. A. (2011). Is reward system and leadership important in knowledge sharing among academics? American Journal of Economics and Business Adminis- tration 3(1), 87-94.
Jain, A. K., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2013). Knowledge management practices in a public sector organi- sation: the role of leaders’ cognitive styles, Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 347-362. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2012-0358
Jayasingam, S., Ansari, M. A., & Jantan, M. (2010). Influencing knowledge workers: the power of top management, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110(1), 134-151. https://doi. org/10.1108/02635571011008443
Kafashpoor, A., Shakoori, N., & Sadeghian, S. (2013). Linking organizational culture, structure, leadership style, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management, Advanced Research in Economic and Management Sciences (AREMS), 10, 158-172.
Khalid, A., & Ahmed, M. (2015). Impact of knowledge sharing on organizational learning: Mod- erating effect of organizational leadership, Asian Journal of Management Research, 5(3), 358- 371.
Le, P. B., & Lei, H. (2017). How transformational leadership supports knowledge sharing: Ev- idence from Chinese manufacturing and service firms, Chinese Management Studies, 11(3), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-02-2017-0039
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates, Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 271-299.
Lin, H-F., & Lee, G-G. (2004). Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge sharing behaviour, Management Decision, 42(1), 108-125. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740410510181
Mahmood, S., & Khattak, M. A. (2017). The role of transformational leader in developing knowledge culture in public sector hospitals, International Journal of Organizational Leader- ship, 6, 511-524.
Mas-Machuca, M. (2014). The role of leadership: The challenge of knowledge management and learning in knowledge-intensive organizations, IJELM- International Journal of Educational
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
264
Leadership & Management, 2(1), 97-116. doi: 10.4471/ijelm.2014.10 Merat, A., & Bo, D. (2013). Strategic analysis of knowledge firms: the links between knowledge
management and leadership, Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 3-15. https://doi. org/10.1108/13673271311300697
Miloloža, I. (2018). Impact of leadership styles on enterprise success in the area of knowledge and human resource management, Managing Global Transitions 16(2), 103–122. https:// doi.org/10.26493/1854-6935.16.103-122
Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., & Altman D. G. (2009).Preferred reporting items for systemat- ic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement.BMJ.doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535
Mushtaq, R., & Bokhari, R. H. (2011). Knowledge Sharing: Organizational culture and trans- formational leadership, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 12(2). Retrieved on 20th February, 2019 from http://www.tlainc.com/articl260.htm
Nguyen, H. N., & Mohamed, S. (2011). Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and knowl- edge management practices: An empirical investigation, Journal of Management Development, 30(2), 206-221. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711111105786
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Sci- ence, 5(1), 14-37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2635068
Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V. M., Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Rezazadeh, A. (2013). Relations between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: An empirical investigation, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 64, 1073–1085. doi 10.1007/ s00170-012-4038-y
Nouri, B. A., Mousavi, M. M., & Soltan, M. (2016). Effect of transformational leadership and knowledge management processes on organizational innovation in Ardabil University of Medical Sciences, International Journal of Management, Accounting and Economics, 3(11), 672-698.
Park, S., & Kim, E-J. (2018). Fostering organizational learning through leadership and knowledge sharing, Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(6), 1408-1423. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JKM-10-2017-0467
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Politis, J. D. (2001). The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge manage-
ment, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 354-364. https://doi. org/10.1108/01437730110410071
Pringgabayu, D., & Ramdlany, D. M. A. (2017). Creating knowledge management with the role of leadership and organizational culture, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Business and Economics, 5(2), 147–171
Rawung, F. H., Wuryaningrat, N. F., & Elvinita, L. E. (2015). The influence of transformational and transactional leadership on knowledge sharing: An empirical study on small and me- dium business in Indonesia, Asian Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 123–145
Ribière, V. M. & Sitar, A. S. (2003). Critical role of leadership innurturing a knowledge-support- ing culture, Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1, 39-48.doi: 10.1057/palgrave. kmrp.8500004
Sadeghi, A., & Rad, F. M. (2018). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge
Al Amiri et al
265
management and innovation, Management Science Letters, 8, 151–160.doi: 10.5267/j. msl.2018.1.003
Safari, A., & Azadehdel, M. R. (2015). The key role of knowledge-oriented leadership in inno- vation performance of manufacturing and commercial companies of Guilan province, International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 62, 1-7. doi:10.18052/www.scipress. com/ILSHS.62.1
Sharifkhani, M., Pool, J. K., & Asian, S. (2016). The impact of leader-member exchange on knowl- edge sharing and performance: An empirical investigation in the oil and gas industry, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 7(3), 289-305. https://doi.org/10.1108/ JSTPM-11-2015-0037
Singh, S. K. (2008). Role of leadership in knowledge management: a study, Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270810884219
Uddin, M. A., Fan, L., & Das, A. K. (2017). A study of the impact of transformational leader- ship, organizational learning, and knowledge management on organizational innovation, Management Dynamics, 16(2), 42-54
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership, American Psycholo- gist, 62(1), 17–24.doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.17
Walumbwa, F., Avolio, B., Gardner, W., Wernsing, T., & Peterson, S. (2008). Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure, Journal of Management 34 (1), 89- 126. doi 10.1177/0149206307308913
Weber, M (1968). The basis of legitimacy. The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford Uni- versity press, 5th printing, p. 328
Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An integrative definition of leadership, International Jour- nal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 6-66
Yang, J.-T. (2007). Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collabora- tive culture, Tourism Management 28(2), 530-543. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2006.08.006
Young, R. (2010). Understanding the four dimensions of knowledge management. Retrieved on April, 20th, 2019 from http://www.knowledge-management-online.com/understand- ing-the-four-dimensions-of-knowledge-management.html
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
266
Appendices Appendix 1: Characteristics of articles included in the review Author/s Study Design Country Industry Sample Size Politis, 2001 Cross sectional Australia Manufacturing 216 employees Lin & Lee, 2004 Cross sectional Taiwan Large companies 154 senior managers Crawford, 2005 Cross sectional USA Education 1,046 non-traditional
students and others Chen & Barry, 2006 Cross sectional Taiwan & USA Professional service
firms 165 employees
Yang, 2007 Cross sectional Taiwan Hotel 499 employees Garcı´a-Morales., Llore´ns-Montes, & Ver- du´-Jover, 2008
Cross sectional Spain Organizations 408 CEOs
Singh, 2008 Cross sectional India Software firm 331 knowledge work- ers
Jayasingam, Ansari, & Jantan, 2010
Cross sectional Malaysia Multimedia super corridor status firms
402 knowledge work- ers
De Vries, Bakker-Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010
Cross sectional Netherlands Governmental orga- nization.
279 employees
Mushtaq & Bokhari, 2011 Cross sectional Pakistan Banking 116 employees Nguyen & Mohamed, 2011
Cross sectional Australia Small-to-medium sized enterprises (SMEs)
157 middle managers
Jahani, Ramayah, & Effen- di, 2011
Cross sectional Iran University 126 lecturers
Allameh, Babaei, Chitsaz, & Gharibpoor, 2012
Cross sectional Iran University 90 faculty members
Analoui, Doloriert, & Sambrook, 2012
Cross sectional UK Information and communications technology (ICT)
111 knowledge man- agers
Chi, Lan, & Dorjgotov, 2012
Cross sectional Mongolia Research institutes 524 research and development profes- sional
Kafashpoor, Shakoori, & Sadeghian, 2013
Cross sectional Iran Municipality 224 employees
Akpotu & Jasmine, 2013 Cross sectional Nigeria ICT 221 managers & em- ployees
Jain & Jeppesen, 2013 Cross sectional India Thermal power gen- eration
210 middle and senior managers
Noruzy, Dalfard, Azh- dari, Nazari-Shirkouhi, & Rezazadeh, 2013
Cross sectional Iran Manufacturing com- panies
280 managers
Gelard, Boroumand, & Mohammadi, 2014
Cross sectional Iran Colors, chemicals, textile and leather industries
47 experts
Al Amiri et al
267
Akhavan, Zahedi, Dastyari, & Abasaltian, 2014
Cross sectional Iran Research 224 experts, research- ers, and managers
Mas-Machuca, 2014 Cross sectional Spain Consulting 100 knowledge work- ers and KM project managers
Birasnav, 2014 Cross sectional Bahrain Service firms 238 managers Aldulaimi, 2015 Cross sectional GCC countries Telecommunications
companies 384 human resources professionals
Khalid & Ahmed, 2015 Cross sectional Pakistan Banking 103 employees İdris, Ali, & Godwin, 2015 Cross sectional Nigeria Construction 220 knowledge work-
ers Bradshaw, Chebbi, & Oztel, 2015
Cross sectional UAE Schools 223 employees
Rawung, Wuryaningra, & Elvinita, 2015
Cross sectional Indonesia Small- and medi- um-scale production companies
176 owners & man- agers
Safari & Azadehdel (2015) Cross sectional Iran Manufacturing and commercial compa- nies
282 employees
Hayat, Maleki Hasanvand, Nikakhlag, & Dehghani, 2015
Cross sectional Iran University 214 employees
Donate & De Pablo, 2015 Cross sectional Spain Technology 111 CEOs and direc- tors
Nouri, Mousavi, & Soltan , 2016
Cross sectional Iran University 277 managers, em- ployees, and faculty members
Imdad Ullah, Bin Ab Ha- mid, & Shahzad, 2016
Cross sectional Pakistan Dairy sector 254 managers and owners
Ghanbari & Abedzadeh, 2016
Cross sectional Iran Plastic industry 253 of managers, ex- perts, and employees
Al-Husseini & Dosa, 2016 Cross sectional Iraq Public higher educa- tion
254 employees
Sharifkhani, Pool & Asian, 2016
Cross sectional Singapore Oil and gas 116 employees
Pringgabayu & Ramdlany, 2017
Cross sectional Indonesia State Owned-Port Company
412 employees
Tang, 2017 Cross sectional China Medical industry 288 managers, physi- cians, and employees
Farooqi, Gohar, Nazish, & Ahmad, 2017
Cross sectional Pakistan SME sector 302 employees
Jad et al., 2017 Cross sectional Iran Food industry 316 employees Uddin, Fan & Das, 2017 Cross sectional Bangladesh Export processing
zones 273 managers
Mahmood & Khattak, 2017
Cross sectional Pakistan Public sector hospi- tals
100 nurses, doctors, and paramedics
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
268
Hussain, Abbas, Lei, Haid- er, & Akram, 2017
Cross sectional Pakistan Telecom 300 supervisors
Le & Lei, 2017 Cross sectional China Large manufacturing and service firms
353 managers
Miloloža, 2018 Cross sectional Croatia Various-size enter- prises
60 presidents or exec- utive board members
Farooq, Hanif & Khan , 2018
Cross sectional Pakistan Banking 300 top and middle level managers
Sadeghi & Rad, 2018 Cross sectional Iran Governorate 207 employees Aung & Vinitwatanakhun, 2018
Cross sectional Thailand Schools 35 teachers
Park & Kim, 2018 Cross sectional Korea Manufacturing 209 employees Al-Husseini & Elbeltagi, 2018
Cross sectional Iraq Higher education 250 employees
Appendix 2: Information extracted from the articles included in the review Leadership Style/ Role
KM Activity Findings
Politis, 2001 Self-management Transformational Transactional Initiating structure Consideration
Knowledge acquisition: Communication / prob- lem understanding Personal traits Control Organization Negotiation
A positive effect of self-management on communication and problem understanding, personal traits, and organization. A positive effect of transformational style in negotiations. A positive effect of transactional style on personal traits and organization. A positive effect of initiating structure on communication/problem under- standing A negative effect of initiating structure on personal traits, organization, and negotiation. Consideration has no effect on knowl- edge acquisition.
Lin & Lee, 2004 Senior managers in- tentions to encourage knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing A positive correlation of senior man- agers intentions to encourage knowl- edge sharing
Crawford, 2005 Transformational Transactional Laissez-faire
KM A positive correlation of transforma- tional leadership with KM. A positive correlation of the combi- nation of organizational position and transformational leadership with KM. A negative correlation of laissez-faire leadership with KM. No correlation between transactional leadership and KM.
Al Amiri et al
269
Chen & Barry, 2006
Transformational Contingent reward Laissez-faire
Knowledge sharing: Internal External
A positive correlation of transforma- tional leadership behavior with internal knowledge sharing. A positive correlation of contingent reward leadership behavior with both internal and external knowledge shar- ing with customers. A negative correlation of laissez-faire leadership with external knowledge sharing.
Yang, 2007 Facilitator Mentor Innovator Monitor role
Knowledge sharing A positive correlation of leader’s facili- tator, mentor, and innovator roles with knowledge sharing effectiveness. A negative correlation of leader’s monitor role with knowledge sharing.
Garcı´a-Morales., Llore´ns-Montes & Verdu´-Jover, 2008
Transformational Knowledge slack Absorptive capacity Tacitness
A positive direct effect of transforma- tional leadership on all variables. Note: knowledge slack, absorptive capacity and tacitness mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and organization learning and innovation.
Singh, 2008 Directive Supportive Consulting Delegating
KM A positive relationship between con- sulting and delegating styles with KM. A negative association of directive and supportive styles with KM.
Jayasingam, Ansari & Jantan, 2010
Legitimate power Coercive power Reward power Referent power Expert power
KM A positive effect of expert power on knowledge acquisition and dissemina- tion. A negative effect of legitimate power on knowledge acquisition. A positive effect of reward power on knowledge dissemination in small firms. A positive effect of coercive power has a detrimental effect on KM in small organizations only. No effect of referent power on KM.
De Vries, Bak- ker-Pieper & Oostenveld, 2010
Communicative: Charismatic Human-oriented Non- communicative (Task-oriented leader- ship)
Knowledge sharing A positive relationship between com- municative and knowledge sharing. No relation between non-communica- tive style and knowledge sharing.
Mushtaq & Bokhari, 2011
Transformational Knowledge sharing A positive effect of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing and promoting knowledge sharing.
Nguyen & Mo- hamed, 2011
Transformational Transactional
KM A positive relationship between both transformational and transactional leadership and KM.
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
270
Jahani, Ramayah & Effendi, 2011
Facilitator Mentor
Knowledge sharing A positive relationship between the mentor leadership style and knowledge sharing. No relation between facilitator leader- ship and knowledge sharing.
Allameh, Babaei, Chitsaz & Gharibpoor, 2012
Transformational Transactional
KM: Knowledge conversion Socialization Externalization Combi- nation Internalization.
A positive correlation between transformational leadership and all variables. A positive correlation between trans- actional leadership and knowledge externalization, and internalization. No correlation between transactional leadership and knowledge conversion and socialization.
Analoui, Dolori- ert & Sambrook, 2012
Transformational Transactional Passive-Avoidance leadership
KM A positive correlation between trans- formational and transactional leader- ship styles and KM. No relation exists between passive avoidance leadership and KM.
Chi, Lan & Dor- jgotov, 2012
Transformational lead- ership (Moderator)
KM A positive moderating effect of trans- formational leadership on the relation of KM and organizational effective- ness. Note: transformational leadership and KM have a reinforcement interaction effect on organizational effectiveness.
Kafashpoor, Shakoori & Sade- ghian, 2013
Leadership style KM A positive relationship between leader- ship style and KM. Note: KM has a mediating role in the relationship between leadership style and effectiveness.
Akpotu & Jas- mine, 2013
Transformational Knowledge sharing A positive relationship between trans- formational leadership and knowledge sharing.
Jain &Jeppesen, 2013
Cognitive styles: Radical style Innovative-collabora- tive or adaptive style
KM A positive effect of the adaptive style on KM practices. A negative effect of the radical and innovative-collaborator style on KM.
Noruzy, Dal- fard, Azhdari, Nazari-Shirkouhi & Rezazadeh, 2013
Transformational KM A positive effect of transformational leadership on organizational learning and KM. Note: transformational leadership influences organizational innovation through organizational learning and KM.
Gelard, Borou- mand & Moham- madi, 2014
Transformational KM A positive correlation between trans- formational leadership and KM.
Al Amiri et al
271
Akhavan, Zahedi, Dastyari &Aba- saltian, 2014
Supportive Command leadership
KM: Generation Sharing Organization Utilization
A positive effect of command leader- ship on the KM process. A positive effect of the supportive leadership on three aspects of KM (i.e. knowledge generation, sharing, and utilization) No association between supportive leadership and knowledge organiza- tion.
Mas-Machuca, 2014
Strategic Leadership KM A positive relationship between the strategic dimension of leadership on KM practices.
Birasnav, 2014 Transformational KM A positive effect of transformational leadership on KM. Note: KM partially mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational perfor- mance after controlling for the effects of transactional leadership.
Aldulaimi, 2015 Organizational leader- ship: Directive Participative Supportive
KM A positive effect on organizational leadership on KM Note: KM partially mediates the impact of organizational leadership on organizational effectiveness
Khalid & Ahmed, 2015
Leadership (Moder- ating)
Knowledge sharing A positive moderating effect of leadership on the relationship between knowledge sharing and organizational learning.
İdris, Ali & God- win, 2015
Leadership: Emotional intelligence Leadership traits Transformation team
Knowledge transfer A positive effect of leadership con- structs on the transfer of knowledge among organizational leadership.
Bradshaw, Chebbi & Oztel, 2015
Transformation: Idealized influence attributes Idealized influence behavior Intellectual stimulation Individualized consid- eration Inspirational motiva- tion Transactional Contingent reward Active management by exception Passive management by exception Laissez-faire
Knowledge sharing: Socialization Externalization Combination Internalization
A positive correlation of the idealized influence behavior with socialization. A positive correlation of intellectual stimulation with all dimensions of knowledge sharing. A positive correlation of individual- ized consideration with externalization. A positive correlation of the contin- gent reward with socialization and combination.
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
272
Rawung, Wuryan- ingra & Elvinita, 2015
Transformational Transactional
Knowledge sharing: Collecting Donating
A positive effect of individual consid- eration and individual inspiration on knowledge sharing. No effect of intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation on knowl- edge sharing. No effect of the contingent reward dimension on knowledge sharing.
Safari & Azadeh- del (2015)
Knowledge oriented leadership
Knowledge creation Knowledge application
A positive effect of the knowledge-ori- ented leadership on knowledge cre- ation and application. Note: knowledge creation and applica- tion mediate the relationship between knowledge-oriented leadership and innovation performance.
Hayat, Maleki Hasanvand, Nika- khlag & Deh- ghani, 2015
Transformational Inspirational motiva- tion Idealized influence Transactional Laissez-faire
KM A positive correlation of transforma- tional leadership with KM. A positive correlation of transactional leadership with KM. No relationship between the lais- sez-faire style and KM.
Donate & De Pablo, 2015
Knowledge-oriented leadership
KM A positive relationship between knowl- edge leadership and KM. Note: knowledge leadership has an indirect effect on a company’s innova- tion results through its KM initiatives.
Nouri, Mousavi & Soltan , 2016
Transformational KM A positive effect of transformational leadership on KM Note: KM has a positive mediating role between transformational leader- ship and organizational innovation.
Imdad Ullah, Bin Ab Hamid & Shahzad, 2016
Transformational Knowledge sharing A positive effect of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing. Note: knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative capability.
Ghanbari & Abedzadeh, 2016
Transactional leader- ship
KM A positive relationship between trans- actional leadership and KM.
Al-Husseini & Dosa, 2016
Transformational Knowledge sharing A positive relationship between trans- formational leadership and knowledge sharing. Note: knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and innovation.
Sharifkhani, Pool & Asian, 2016
Leader-member ex- change (LMX)
Knowledge sharing A positive effect of the LMX on knowledge sharing. Note: knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between the LMX and performance.
Al Amiri et al
273
Pringgabayu & Ramdlany, 2017
The leadership styles Telling Selling Participating Delegating
KM A positive effect of the four con- structs on KM. Note: the combination of leadership and organizational culture has a strong influence on knowledge management. Also, leadership has a significant positive influence in shaping the or- ganizational culture that in turn has a significant influence on KM.
Tang, 2017 Leadership behaviors: Leadership style Professional authority Counselling skills
KM A positive relationship between leader- ship behavior and KM, Note: KM mediates the relation of leadership behavior and organizational innovation.
Farooqi, Gohar, Nazish & Ah- mad, 2017
Transformational Transactional
KM: Socialization External- ization Combination Internal- ization
A positive relationship between trans- formational and transactional leader- ship with KM. Note: the transformational leadership style has a stronger effect than the transactional style.
Jad et al., 2017 Knowledge leadership KM A positive effect of the knowledge-ori- ented leadership on KM activities. Note: KM activities have a mediating effect on the relationship between knowledge leadership and product innovation.
Uddin, Fan & Das, 2017
Transformational KM A positive effect of transformational leadership on organizational KM and learning.
Mahmood & Khattak, 2017
Transformational Knowledge sharing A positive direct relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing. Notes: trust and organizational culture play a mediating role in the relation- ship between transformational leader- ship and knowledge sharing.
Hussain, Abbas, Lei, Haider & Akram, 2017
Transactional Knowledge sharing A positive relationship of transactional leadership with knowledge sharing. Note; knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between transactional leadership and creativity.
Le & Lei, 2017 Transformational Knowledge sharing: Collecting Donating
A positive direct effect of transfor- mational leadership on knowledge sharing. Note: justice and trust in leadership play mediating roles in the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing behavior.
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - September-December, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2020
274
Miloloža, 2018 Autocratic Democratic Laissez-faire
KM A positive effect of autocratic styles on KM in large enterprises and enter- prises in the stagnation phase. A neutral effect of autocratic styles on KM in enterprises oriented toward international and domestic markets. A negative effect of autocratic style on KM in small enterprises and enterpris- es in the growth and maturity phase. A positive effect of democratic styles on KM in small and medium-sized en- terprises, enterprises in the stagnation phase, and enterprises oriented toward international markets. A neutral effect of autocratic styles on KM in enterprises oriented toward international and domestic markets. A negative effect of democratic style on KM in enterprises in the growth and maturity phase. A positive effect of laissez-faire style on KM in large enterprises, enterprises in the maturity and growth phase, as well as in enterprises in the stagnation phase A neutral effect of laissez-faire style on KM in all enterprise groups.
Farooq, Hanif & Khan, 2018
Leadership: Empowering Trust Reward
Knowledge sharing A positive effect of the three leader- ship styles on knowledge sharing.
Sadeghi & Rad, 2018
Knowledge based leadership
KM A positive relationship between knowl- edge-based leadership with KM. Note: a direct positive and meaningful relationship exists between KM and innovation performance and between knowledge-based leadership and inno- vation performance.
Aung & Vin- itwatanakhun, 2018
Transformational Transactional
KM A positive relationship between trans- formational leadership and KM. No relationship between transactional leadership and KM.
Al Amiri et al
275
Park & Kim, 2018
Transformational Knowledge sharing climate
A positive direct effect of transforma- tional leadership on both the knowl- edge sharing climate and knowledge sharing behavior. Note: transformational leadership also indirectly affects organizational learning’s knowledge sharing behavior, and interpersonal trust through knowl- edge-sharing climate.
Al-Husseini & Elbeltagi, 2018
Transformational Knowledge sharing A positive effect of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing.