| Literature DB >> 34975699 |
Muhammad Mohsin1, Qiang Zhu1, Xiaojun Wang1, Sobia Naseem2, Muhammad Nazam3.
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the impact of ethical leadership on knowledge-hiding behavior of the employees working in the financial services sector under the mediating role of meaningful at work and moderating role of ethical climate. For this purpose, data were collected from two hundred and fifteen employees of financial services providing organizations. The already-established scales were followed to develop an instrument that was used to obtain responses from the respondents. Collected data were analyzed by applying the structural equation modeling through Smart PLS and Process Macro. The results indicate that ethical leadership and meaningful work (MW) reduce knowledge-hiding behavior of employees at work, while ethical leadership positively impacts the influential work of employees at the workplace. Further, the relationship between ethical leadership and knowledge-hiding behavior is partially mediated by MW. Similarly, ethical climate moderated the relationship between ethical leadership and knowledge-hiding behavior. This research makes valuable contributions to the existing literature on leadership and knowledge management. From a practical point of view, this study stresses that managers at work should promote ethical leadership styles to promote MW, which will reduce knowledge hiding. Thus, in this way, it will enhance the innovation and creativity within organizational circuits. The limitations and future directions of this study are also listed.Entities:
Keywords: ethical climate; ethical leadership; knowledge hiding behavior; meaningful work; services sector
Year: 2021 PMID: 34975699 PMCID: PMC8716561 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.798631
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Conceptual framework.
Demographic characteristics of respondents.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 122 | 56.67 |
| Female | 93 | 43.33 | |
| Age | 21–30 | 17 | 8.00 |
| 31–40 | 50 | 23.33 | |
| 41–50 | 77 | 36.00 | |
| 51 and above | 71 | 32.67 | |
| Education | Intermediate | 36 | 16.67 |
| Bachelor | 63 | 29.33 | |
| Masters/M.Phil. | 109 | 50.67 | |
| PhD | 7 | 3.33 | |
| Sector | Banking | 54 | 25.00 |
| Insurance | 32 | 15.00 | |
| Security | 32 | 15.00 | |
| Teaching | 43 | 20.00 | |
| Lawyer | 22 | 10.00 | |
| Doctor | 32 | 15.00 | |
| Marital status | Married | 93 | 43.33 |
| Single | 85 | 39.33 | |
| Divorced | 37 | 17.33 | |
| Income | 0–35,000 PKR | 29 | 13.33 |
| 35,000–45,000 | 50 | 23.33 | |
| 45,000–55,000 | 73 | 34.00 | |
| 55,000–65,000 | 46 | 21.33 | |
| 65,000 and above | 17 | 8.00 |
Reliability and validity analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Ethical leadership | EL2 | 0.738 | 0.752 | 0.569 | 0.841 |
| EL3 | 0.773 | ||||
| EL5 | 0.794 | ||||
| EL6 | 0.710 | ||||
| Knowledge-Hiding behavior | KHB1 | 0.833 | 0.766 | 0.584 | 0.848 |
| KHB3 | 0.804 | ||||
| KHB5 | 0.714 | ||||
| KHB7 | 0.713 | ||||
| Meaningful work | MW1 | 0.813 | 0.883 | 0.629 | 0.910 |
| MW2 | 0.794 | ||||
| MW3 | 0.780 | ||||
| MW4 | 0.798 | ||||
| MW5 | 0.803 | ||||
| MW6 | 0.769 |
CA ≥ 0.7; CR ≥ 0.7; AVE ≥ 0.5;
Significant threshold at p < 0.001.
Figure 2Construct reliability and validity.
Convergent validity.
|
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| 1 | Employees knowledge-hiding behavior | 0.227 | 0.037 | 0.766 | 0.584 | 0.848 | 0.764 | ||
| 2 | Ethical leadership | 0.757 | 0.014 | 0.752 | 0.569 | 0.841 | −0.071 | 0.754 | |
| 3 | Meaningful work | 0.595 | 0.036 | 0.883 | 0.629 | 0.910 | −0.143 | 0.209 | 0.793 |
Discriminant validity.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Employee's knowledge hiding behavior | 0.897 | ||
| 2 | Ethical leadership | −0.854 | 0.876 | |
| 3 | Meaningful work | −0.785 | 0.786 | 0.876 |
Predictive accuracy and relevance of the model.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| Meaningful work | 0.529 | 0.525 |
| Knowledge hiding behavior | 0.723 | 0.742 |
Hypothesis testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| H1 | EL —> KHB | −0.043 | 0.037 | 6.12 | 0.000 | H1, Supported |
| H2 | EL —> MW | 0.209 | 0.014 | 55.09 | 0.000 | H2, Supported |
| H3 | MW —> KHB | −0.134 | 0.036 | 16.78 | 0.000 | H3, Supported |
Figure 3Structural model.
Mediation effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EL -> MW -> KHB | −0.043 (6.12) | 0.452 (15.26) | 0.677 (36.40) | 67.12 | Partial Mediation | H4, Supported |
Moderation analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 1.235 | 0.559 | 2.210 | 0.0282 | 0.1334 | 2.3362 | H5, Supported |
| Int_1 | −0.162 | 0.076 | −2.131 | 0.0343 | −0.3118 | −0.0121 | |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| X*W | 0.021 | 4.541 | 1.000 | 210.000 | 0.0343 |
Moderating variable = ethical climate.