Empowering leadership and

innovative work behavior: a moderated

mediation examination
Umamaheswara Rao Jada, Susmita Mukhopadhyay and Rohit Titiyal

Abstract Umamaheswara Rao Jada,

Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to investigate the relationship between empowering leadership Susmita Mukhopadhyay
and the innovative work behavior of employees. Utilizing a moderated mediation mechanism, the study and Rohit Titiyal are all
additionally uncovers the mediating impact of knowledge sharing and the moderating influence of role based at Vinod Gupta
clarity in the proposed model. School of Management,
Design/methodology/approach – Cross-sectional design was used in the study, and developed Indian Institute of
questionnaires were administered to 235 supervisor-subordinates dyads working in Indian organizations
Technology Kharagpur,
to test the proposed relationships. SPSS 20 and AMOS 20 were used for statistical analysis.
Kharagpur, India.
Findings – The hypothesized moderated mediation model was supported. Knowledge sharing
mediated the relationship between empowering leadership and innovative work behavior. The
moderating impact of role clarity between empowering leadership and knowledge sharing was
supported. It was also observed that stronger role clarity strengthened the indirect relationship between
empowering leadership and innovative work behavior. Overall, the study shows that empowering leaders
creates a cultivating climate for innovative work behavior by encouraging knowledge sharing among the
members subject to clear identification of employee roles.
Research limitations/implications – Cross-sectional design of the study limits the authors from
drawing definitive generalizations. Self-reported measures used in the study increase the chances of
bias.
Practical implications – Findings of the study can be utilized by leaders for promoting innovative work
behavior in the organization, which has been identified as a key to organizational growth and
development.
Originality/value – The study attempts to address the under developed relationship between
empowering leadership and innovative work behavior.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Empowering leadership, Role clarity, Innovative work behaviour
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Innovative work behavior (IWB) of employees has emerged as a critical factor for
organizations to achieve competitive advantage and assure long-term survival in the
present highly competitive business environment. IWB refers to the creation, development
and implementation of new and useful ideas in the organization (Baer, 2012). In one of
the recent studies, Shanker et al. (2017) argued that the organizations which fail to innovate
potentially diminish their ability to fight competition and run at the risk of going out of the
market. Alternatively, organizations which continually innovate have been found to achieve
a higher level of organizational performance (Ogbonnaya and Valizade, 2016). This indeed
has compelled organizations to identify antecedents that foster employee’s IWB (De Jong
Received 27 August 2018
and Den Hartog, 2010; Xerri and Brunetto, 2013). Out of the various antecedents identified Revised 3 March 2019
that range across rewards, human resouce development practices, quality of work Accepted 6 March 2019

DOI 10.1108/JKM-08-2018-0533 VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019, pp. 915-930, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 915
 relationships, organizational justice and employee commitment (Janssen, 2000;
Dorenbosch et al., 2005; Reuvers et al., 2008; De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010; Prieto and
Pérez-Santana, 2014; De Spiegelaere et al., 2015; Dhar, 2016; Shankar et al., 2017),
leadership has long been recognized as one of the prime factors that influences employee’s
IWB (Reuvers et al., 2008; Aryee et al., 2012; Koryak et al., 2015; Choi et al., 2016; Bagheri,
2017).
Despite the growing body of research concerning the association between leadership and
employee’s IWB (Choi et al., 2016; Bagheri, 2017), the impact of an emerging and
promising leadership concept, empowering leadership (EL), has been potentially
overlooked by the researchers (Chen et al., 2011). Past researchers have however
examined the impact of other leadership styles like transformational, ethical and authentic
leadership on IWB (Jung et al., 2008; Choi et al., 2016; Yidong and Xinxin, 2013; Chen and
Hou, 2016). But what differentiates EL from these is the fact that it aims at creating
independent and self-directed individuals, rather than creating a dependence, which may
happen in case of a transformational leader (Biemann et al.,2015). It additionally goes
beyond than just mere delegation of authority and focuses on a broader range of behaviors,
for instance, expressing confidence in employees, removing bureaucratic hindrances,
building employee capabilities (Arnold et al., 2000; Ahearne et al., 2005) and encouraging
employee’s proactive behavior (Martin et al., 2013), which we expect will superiorly foster
employee’s IWB.
EL is a leadership style which adopts an on-going philosophy of sharing power and
authority with the followers (Martin et al., 2013). Past literature asserts that empowering
leaders allow followers to take control of their work (Srivastava et al., 2006) which enhances
their intrinsic motivation to take risks and try new things (Zhang and Bartol, 2010). While
researchers offer sufficient empirical evidence for the positive impact of EL on employee’s
creativity (Zhang and Bartol, 2010; Zhang and Zhou, 2014; Amundsen and Martinsen,
2015), which acts as an immediate precursor to employee’s IWB (Malloch, 2014), not much
attention has been given to the effect of EL on employees’ IWB (Slåtten et al., 2011;
Gkorezis, 2016).
Scholars in the past have also advanced the positive impact of EL on knowledge sharing
(KS) in an organization (Srivastava et al., 2006; Xue et al., 2011). KS relates to the sharing of
task-relevant ideas, information and suggestions amongst team members working together
in an organization (Srivastava et al., 2006). While, on the one hand, Xue et al. (2011)
proposed a strong coherence between EL and follower’s intentions toward sharing
knowledge with others in the organization, on the other hand, Radaelli et al. (2014) have
argued that KS promotes IWB by stimulating a new understanding of the knowledge and its
mobilization for innovation purposes. Although both EL and KS have been found to
complement IWB individually (Lee et al., 2014; Wu and Lee, 2017), their integrated impact
on IWB has not been explored yet.
The study additionally incorporates the moderating impact of role clarity (RC) between EL
and KS. RC occurs when employees understand what is expected of them and are clear on
the means to carry out their jobs effectively (Rizzo et al., 1970). As lack of RC is likely to
deplete the resources or energy of the subordinates (Hobfoll, 1989), the researchers
anticipate that employees with low RC may refrain from sharing knowledge with others in the
organization, despite the encouragement and support extended by an empowering leader.
This is because employees with low RC lack a clear understanding of their job which makes
them incompetent and in less control of their surroundings (Wang et al., 2016). While
employees with high RC out of high psychological empowerment and confidence
(Hall, 2008) are more likely to share knowledge and act innovatively.
Considering the above, the key research questions driving this study are:
RQ1. Does EL positively impacts the employee’s IWB at the workplace?

PAGE 916 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019

 RQ2. Does KS as a mediator facilitates employee’s IWB at the workplace under an EL
style?
RQ3. Is the direct relationship between EL and KS, and indirect relationship between EL
and employee’s IWB via KS moderated by RC? Whether this indirect effect is
stronger or not, when RC is high rather than low?
Overall, the main contribution of the paper lies in examining the interactions between EL
and IWB via KS and RC by adopting a dyadic approach. This assumes importance on
account of the growing debate concerning the enabling nature (positive side) of EL
(Cheong et al., 2016). In lieu of the same, the paper builds and combines varied
perspectives such as social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), social learning theory (Bandura,
1977) and the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) to examine the
impact of EL on IWB. The proposed mediating impact of KS between EL and IWB assumes
importance because of the view that although both EL and KS have been found to
complement IWB individually, their integrated impact has not been examined yet. The study
examines whether this complementing mechanism holds well in an integrated framework or
not. Finally, the inclusion of RC as a boundary spanner further provides scope for testing the
situational effectiveness of EL which has been identified as one of the key research areas
by the researchers recently (Cheong et al., 2016). This indeed helps us test whether EL is
only an effective mechanism for employees with high RC only as against low RC for
promoting employee’s IWB in consideration of the fact that an empowering leader allows
followers to take control of their work (Srivastava et al., 2006) and adopts a continuing
philosophy of sharing power and authority (Martin et al., 2013). In sum, the model proposed
and intervening variables adopted are expected to offer a more comprehensive
understanding of the EL phenomenon (Zhang and Bartol, 2010). The proposed moderated
mediation model has been presented in Figure 1.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 Empowering leadership and innovative work behavior
The spirit of EL lies in sharing power and authority with the subordinates and raising their
level of autonomy and responsibility (Lorinkova et al., 2013). An empowering leader
motivates followers to emerge as self-directed individuals who can initiate tasks, take up
responsibilities and coordinate activities to achieve higher organizational objectives (Sims
et al., 2009). It is majorly seen as a motivation process that aims at elevating the follower’s
confidence through increased participation in decision-making (Amundsen and Martinsen,
2014). In spite of the growing body of research that endorses the positive impact of EL on
various individual organizational level outcomes (Xue et al., 2011; Gao et al., 2011; Carmeli
et al., 2011; Biemann et al., 2015) the relationship between EL and IWB has not been given
much consideration. However, an exception to this is the work by Slåtten et al. (2011), and

Figure 1 Proposed research model

Role
Clarity

Empowering Knowledge Innovave

Leadership Sharing Work Behavior

VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 917

 Gkorezis (2016). On the one hand, Slåtten et al. (2011) have argued that EL promotes
employee’s creativity by creating a humorous working climate in the organization. While, on
the other hand, Gkorezis (2016) has advanced the positive impact of EL on teacher’s IWB
(Sagnak, 2012). Surprisingly, not many studies have been carried out to examine the impact
of EL on IWB in business organizational settings. Although, extensive research has been
conducted by the researchers to examine the impact of a widely accepted leadership style,
transformational leadership on employee’s IWB (Afsar et al., 2014; Choi et al., 2016; Feng
et al., 2016). But the latter only focuses on leader’s charisma, vision, intellectual stimulation,
and individualized consideration of followers (Bass, 1985) to stimulate employee behaviors,
unlike EL that fosters employee empowerment to stimulate positive work behaviors (Martin
et al., 2013).
The study derives support from social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) to propose the positive
impact of EL on the follower’s intention toward creating, introducing and applying new ideas
at work (Janssen, 2000) which is technically referred to as employee’s IWB. Social
exchange theory states that the quality of exchanges between the leader and the followers
determines the norms of reciprocity. In conjunction with social exchange theory (SET), it is
reasonable to assume that the fair treatment and support extended by an empowering
leader to the followers encourages them to act innovatively at the workplace. Gkorezis
(2016) suggests that the flexibility offered by an empowering leader encourages exploration
at work which in turn builds grounds for innovations at the workplace. Past research asserts
that empowered employees experience high levels of psychological empowerment
(Dierendonck and Dijkstra, 2012; Fock et al., 2013; Lorinkova et al., 2013; Gyu Park et al.,
2017) which positively affects their IWB (Afsar et al., 2014). Such employees find more
meaning in their work and are intrinsically motivated to come up with innovative solutions
(Boerner et al., 2007; Afsar et al., 2014; Choi et al., 2016). Participative decision-making
which is a fundamental aspect of EL has also been found to positively affect creativity
among employees (Amabile et al., 2004) as it encourages employees to work collectively on
problems. On these grounds, we propose:
H1. EL is positively related to innovative behavior at work

2.2 Empowering leadership and knowledge sharing

Numerous researchers have proclaimed the positive impact of EL on KS in an organization
(Srivastava et al., 2006; Kuo et al., 2011; Xue et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2014). The crux of EL
lies in empowering employees which has been considered as an important pre-requirement
for encouraging KS in an organization (Srivastava et al., 2006; Choy Chong, 2006). KS
which is defined as “team members sharing task-relevant ideas, information, and
suggestions with each other” (Srivastava et al., 2006), is expected to be greatly influenced
by EL because of a variety of reasons. The social learning perspective (Bandura, 1977) and
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) provide support for the proposed positive association
between EL and KS. Social learning theory proposed by Bandura (1977, 1986) states that
“people learn various behaviors through attention to, observation of, and imitation of their
role models”. On these grounds, it is reasonable to assume that, when empowering leaders
follow the philosophy of “leading by example” (Arnold et al., 2000) and actively share
knowledge with others in the organization (Xue et al., 2011), their followers are likely to
imitate them.
Likewise, in agreement with the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), which helps us to
understand the reciprocal relations shared by the leaders and their members (Dhar, 2016),
it is expected that the followers will be encouraged to share knowledge with others on
account of the positive and supportive behavior extended by the empowering leader (Wu
and Lee, 2017). As per SET’s norm of reciprocity, the trust and confidence shown by an
empowering leader in followers will encourage followers to assume pro-active behaviors

PAGE 918 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019

(Martin et al., 2013; Tuckey et al., 2012) like sharing knowledge with others in the
organization (Tung and Chang, 2011). In lieu of the participative decision-making style
adopted by an empowering leader (Arnold et al., 2000; Ahearne et al., 2005), employees
perceive themselves to be an important part of the decision process which encourages
them to share ideas, opinions, and suggestion with others in the organization (Gao et al.,
2011). Additionally, by giving the autonomy to the followers to solve problems together, the
leader encourages collaboration which in turn prompts KS among the team members
(Mueller, 2012; Lee et al., 2014). Hence, we propose:
H2. EL is positively related to KS in an organization

2.3 The mediating effect of knowledge sharing

While on the one hand, a significant association has been proposed by the researchers
between EL and KS (Srivastava et al., 2006; Tung and Chang, 2011; Xue et al., 2011; Wu
and Lee, 2017), on the other hand, KS among employees has been identified as an
important pre-requisite for IWB (Radaelli et al., 2014; Afsar, 2016; Bos-Nehles et al., 2017).
Considering this, the study proposes the mediating impact of KS between EL and IWB. The
view is proposed on the grounds that empowering leaders by facilitating KS (Tung and
Chang, 2011) encourage employees to look at the existing problems with a fresh
perspective (Choi et al., 2016). The autonomy granted by an empowering leader to the
followers instills confidence in them to come up with innovative ideas and solutions at work
(Wu and Lee, 2017). The increased self-efficacy of the followers on account of the trust and
confidence shown by the empowering leader (Gao et al., 2011) intrinsically motivates
followers to share knowledge and come up with innovative ideas owing to the collective
vision shared by the followers (Choi et al., 2016). Xue et al. (2011) have claimed that under
an EL style, followers perceive themselves to be an important part of the decision-making
process which encourages them to share knowledge amongst each other, which further
stimulates IWB (Radaelli et al., 2014). Additionally, as empowered employees actively
create, shape and alter their working environments (Parker and Collins, 2010), we expect
this would promote KS among employees leading to innovative behavior at the workplace.
On the basis of the discussion above, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3. KS mediates the relationship between EL and IWB

2.4 The moderating impact of role clarity

RC is defined as “the degree to which individuals believe that they have clear guidance
concerning expected roles and behavior associated with their job” (Kahn et al., 1964). In
simple words, it denotes a work situation where employees understand what is expected of
them and also possess the necessary know-how for carrying out their tasks effectively.
Without a clear set of defined responsibilities, employees feel helpless which reduces their
impact on work (Wang et al., 2016). Past researchers have claimed that employees with low
RC experience stress and anxiety, coupled with the struggle of understanding what is
expected of them (Newman et al., 2015). On the contrary, the employees with high RC
experience lower levels of stress (Gilboa et al., 2008) and high psychological empowerment
(Hall, 2008) which enhances their performance at work (Fried et al., 2003). The study utilizes
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) to support the
proposed moderating impact of RC between EL and KS and its indirect impact between EL
and IWB.
COR theory proposed by Hobfoll (1989) is based on the tenet that “individuals want to
create situations that are pleasurable for themselves and avoid situations that might lead to
the loss of any valued resources” (Ng and Feldman, 2012). Consistent with the COR
framework, the researchers expect that low RC might restrict employee’s KS behavior. This
is because under situations of low RC, subordinates limited energy is majorly spent on

VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 919

 understanding key tasks and responsibilities. To offset this loss of energy that goes into
understanding their expected role and behavior, employees conserve their remaining
energy by not assuming any extra role behaviors (Newman et al., 2015) and thus may avoid
sharing knowledge with others in the organization. Low control over surroundings and lack
of confidence under situations of low RC (Wang et al., 2016) may also inhibit employees
from sharing knowledge with others in the organization. Wang et al. (2016) have also
advanced that employee with poor RC restrict themselves from sharing suggestions and
ideas with others in the organization assuming them to be beyond the scope of their
authority. On the contrary, employees with high RC out of enhanced psychological
empowerment (Hall, 2008; De Villiers and Stander, 2011) are more likely to share
knowledge with others in the organization. Lower levels of stress and anxiety under
situations of high RC (Zheng et al., 2016) may also prompt followers to assume extra role
behaviors (Eatough et al., 2011) like sharing knowledge with others in the organization:
H4. The relationship between EL and KS behavior will be moderated by RC such that the
positive relationship between EL and KS behavior will be stronger when RC is higher.
Additionally, on the grounds of SET (Blau, 1964) in integration with the above-discussed
COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), the study contends the indirect impact of RC between EL and
IWB. We expect that employee’s with high RC will develop a greater sense of obligation to
offer innovative ideas and solutions at the workplace out of supportive and facilitating
context created by an empowering leader (Dewettinck and van Ameijde, 2011; Harris et al.,
2013; Slåtten et al., 2011). In addition, high RC enables employees to preserve their mental
energy and use it productively to accomplish job tasks effectively (Fried et al., 2003) and
assume extra role behaviors under EL behaviors (Martin et al., 2013). It is further expected
that in situations of low RC, EL will be less effective in encouraging employees to offer
innovative ideas and solutions at the workplace as employee’s limited energy will be
consumed in overcoming confusions related to their task performance (Halbesleben et al.,
2014):
H5. The indirect relationship between EL and IWB through KS is conditional on RC such
that higher RC tends to strengthen the impact of EL on IWB.

3. Method
3.1 Participants and procedures
We collected responses from supervisors and their immediate subordinates working in
pharmaceuticals organizations in India. A separate questionnaire was distributed to both
the supervisors and the subordinates, such that subordinates were asked to rate on
supervisors empowering behaviors, RC and KS behavior of self and supervisors were
asked to rate his/her immediate subordinates on IWB. Approximately 300 dyads were
approached for data collection. A total of 250 filled in responses were received. However, of
these, 15 questionnaires had to be discarded as a result of missing data. The remaining
235 were used in statistical analysis, satisfying the minimum sample size requirement for
structural equation modeling (Hair et al., 2014). Among the 235 participants, 190 were
males (average age = 28.38, SD = 2.28) and 45 were females (average age = 25.00, SD =
1.33).

3.2 Measures
Standardized scales were anchored on a five-point Likert scale that ranged from (1)
“strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly agree.”
3.2.1 Empowering leadership. We used 18-item multidimensional scale of Arnold et al.
(2000) to measure EL behavior. The dimensions and items were; lead by example (“My
supervisor sets a good example by the way he/she behaves”), participative decision-

PAGE 920 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019

making (“My supervisor encourages me to express ideas and suggestions”), coaching (“My
supervisor encourages team members to solve problems together”), informing (“My
supervisor explains rules and expectations on me and my team”), and showing concern
(“My supervisor shows care for team members’ personal problems”).
3.2.2 Knowledge sharing. Bock et al.’s (2005) instrument was adapted to measure
employee’s intention to share knowledge. Sample items include “I share my work related
reports and documents with others in my team (sharing explicit knowledge)” and “I share
my experience or know-how from work with other team members more frequently in the
future (Sharing tacit knowledge).
3.2.3 Role clarity. To measure the RC of employees we used a six-item scale of Rizzo et al.
(1970). Sample items included “I feel certain about how much authority I have” and “There
are clear, planned goals and objectives for my job.”
3.2.4 Innovative work behavior. It was rated using Janssen’s (2000) nine-item measure.
Respondents indicated how often they performed innovative activities, including “creating
new ideas for difficult issues” (idea generation), “mobilizing support for innovative ideas”
(idea promotion), and “transforming innovative ideas into useful applications” (idea
realization). The three dimensions of IWB were summed to create an overall scale of
innovative behavior.
3.2.5 Control variables. We included three demographic variables as control variables to
better estimate the effect sizes of the hypothesized variables. We measured and controlled
for employees’ sex, age, and education, which can influence IWB (sex: female = 0, male =
1; education: below a bachelor’s degree = 0, bachelor’s degree and above = 1).

3.3 Common method variance

Considering the fact, that the present piece of research utilized self-reported measures,
there were concerns pertaining to the common method bias. To reduce the chances of the
common method bias, respondents were assured of their anonymity and confidentiality of
the responses provided by them (Chang et al., 2010). This encouraged the respondents to
be honest while recording their responses. Additionally, the survey questions were kept
simple, and unambiguous for easy understanding of the respondents (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). We also reverse coded and reordered a few items in the questionnaire to reduce the
potential influence of the bias (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1977). At last, Harman’s single factor
test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) was applied to examine the probable influence of the common
method bias. The results of the test indicated a poor fit for the single factor solution as only
32.41 per cent of the variance was explained by the single factor matrix, which indicated
that common method variance was not a potential threat in the present study (Podsakoff
et al., 2012).

4. Results
4.1 Validity issues
To test the distinctiveness among the study variables, confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted using Amos 20. The results of the same have been presented in Table I. The
four-factor measurement model fit the data well: x 2 = 172.60, df = 91, CFI = 0.92, GFI =
0.96, TLI = 0.97, RMR = 0.04 and RMSEA = 0.05. All indicators had statistically significant
factor loadings (p < 0.01), suggesting convergent validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).
We then tested discriminant validity in several ways. First, the one-factor measurement
model fit the data poorly: x 2 = 536.03, df = 97, CFI = 0.55, GFI = 0.64, TLI = 0.69, RMR =
0.05, and RMSEA = 0.15. The x 2 difference relative to the four-factor model was significant
(D x 2 = 360.43, p < 0.01), hence showing noticeably dissimilar factors. Additionally,
authors have conducted three more CFA’s by changing different combinations as

VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 921

 Table I Measurement model comparisons
Measurement model x2 df Dx 2 CFI GFI TLI RMR RMSEA

1 Four-factor measurement model 175.6 91 – 0.92 0.96 0.97 0.04 0.05

2 Three-factor measurement model 310.52 94 134.92** 0.85 0.88 0.81 0.07 0.08
3 Three-factor measurement model 352.28 94 176.68** 0.85 0.81 0.78 0.08 0.12
4 Three-factor measurement model 215.23 94 39.63** 0.91 0.82 0.83 0.11 0.09
5 One-factor measurement model 536.03 97 360.43** 0.55 0.64 0.69 0.05 0.15
Notes: n = 235. Model 2 merges EL and KS, Model 3 merges EL and RC, Model 4 merges KS and
role clarity, and Model 5 merges all variables (EL, KS, RC and IWB). The x 2 is with respect to
Model 1. **p < 0.01

mentioned in Table I. The results revealed that the four-factor measurement model was
better than any alternative three-factor measurement model. Therefore, the results show
clear evidence for the discriminant validity of all our study variables.
Results in Table II show the descriptive statistics, internal consistency reliabilities, and
correlations among the variables. All correlations were in the expected directions and
provided support for further testing of the hypotheses. Hypothesis testing was conducted
following the guidelines provided by Muller et al. (2005); multiple regression analysis was
utilized to test our moderated mediation model. To condense the multi-collinearity issues,
we centered EL, RC and KS following the procedure given by Aiken and West (1991).
Figure 2 displays the standardized path coefficients obtained from testing the structural
model. The structural model satisfied the threshold values for all indices; x 2 = 169.07, df =
89, CFI = 0.93, GFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.91, RMR = 0.04, and RMSEA = 0.05. Overall, the
structural model fitted significantly to the data.
As shown in Table III (Models 1 and 2), after we controlled for employees’ sex, age, and
education, EL was positively and significantly related to employee’s IWB ( b = 0.39, p <
0.01). The proportion of variance in employee’s IWB explained by EL was also significant
(DR2 = 0.05, p < 0.01), thus supporting H1. H3 predicted that KS would mediate the
relationship between EL and employee’s IWB. As mentioned in Table III, after controlling for
all control variables, we found that EL was positively and significantly related to KS (Model
3: b = 0.45, p < 0.01) and then KS was positively and significantly related to employee’s
IWB (Model 4: b = 0.32, p < 0.01) provided support for H2. Furthermore, when we
controlled for the effect of EL, we found that KS was still positively related to employee’s
IWB ( b = 0.23, p < 0.01, Model 5). Additionally, authors have conducted bootstrapping
procedure with percentile confidence intervals (CIs) revealed that EL was indirectly related
to employee’s IWB through KS (indirect effect = 0.18; Sobel z = 3.86, p < 0.01; 95 percent
CI = 0.042-0.153). However, the direct path between EL and IWB was significant even after
introducing KS (Mediator) which indicates partial mediation. All of these results support H3.

Table II Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Employee age 26.69 7.21 1

2 Employee gender 0.84 0.11 0.16** 1
3 Employee education 0.29 0.41 0.05 0.02 1
4 EL 3.72 0.78 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.85
5 KS 3.45 0.59 0.01 0.11 0.29** 0.25** 0.89
6 RC 4.14 0.71 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.41** 0.34** 0.75
7 Innovative work behavior 3.48 0.83 0.15** 0.08 0.30** 0.45 0.35** 0.38 0.78
Notes: n = 235. Internal consistency reliability (a) coefficients are reported in parentheses. p < 0.05;
**p < 0.01

PAGE 922 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019

 Figure 2 Structural model

Table III Results of multiple regression analysis

IWB IWB KS IWB IWB KS KS IWB
Variables (M1) (M2) (M3) (M4) (M5) (M6) (M7) (M8)

Gender 0.13* 0.11 0.07 0.15* 0.18* 0.05 0.06 0.17**

Age 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.04
Education 0.34** 0.17** 0.03 0.03* 0.22** 0.07 0.08 0.20**
EL 0.39** 0.45** 0.25** 0.25** 0.18** 0.17*
KS 0.32** 0.23** 0.13*
RC 0.42** 0.45** 0.15*
EL  RC 0.12* 0.14
R2 0.12 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.25 0.36 0.39 0.28
F 7.53* 11.10** 12.33** 13.23** 14.02** 26.19** 22.14** 12.36**
Notes: n = 235. IWB: Innovative work behavior. Standardized coefficients are reported. *p < 0.05;
**p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

Further H4 indicated that RC moderates the relationship between EL and KS, such that this
relationship would be stronger with higher levels of role RC. As presented in Table III
(Model 7), the interaction term of EL and RC was substantial in predicting KS ( b = 0.12, p <
0.05). The surplus proportion of variance in KS explained by the interaction term was also
significant (DR2 = 0.03, p < 0.01); thus, H4 was supported. Additionally, authors have
conducted simple slope tests were conducted to clarify the conditional effect. As shown in
Figure 3, the positive relationship between EL and KS was stronger for employees with high
levels of RC (M þ 1 SD; simple slope = 0.31, p < 0.01) than for employees with low levels of
RC (M  1 SD; simple slope = 0.08, ns). In H5, we proposed that RC would moderate the
indirect relationship between EL and employee’s IWB through KS.
As presented in Table III (Model 8), after controlling for all control variables, we found that
EL, RC and their interaction term, employee KS were positively and significantly related to
employee’s IWB ( b = 0.14, p < 0.01). Further bootstrapping procedure with percentile CIs
shown that EL was indirectly related to employee’s IWB through KS when the level of RC
was high (M þ 1 SD; indirect effect = 0.07; Sobel z = 1.99, p < 0.05; 95 percent
CI = 0.002-0.102). For employees with weaker RC, the indirect relationship between EL and

VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 923

 Figure 3 Interaction effects

4.5

Knwledge Sharing
3.5
Low Role Clarity
3
High Role Clarity
2.5

1.5

1
Low EL High EL

employee’s IWB was not significant (M  1 SD; indirect effect = 0.02; Sobel z = 0.65, ns; 95
percent CI= 0.029 to 0.053). Therefore, H5 was supported.

5. Discussion
5.1 Theoretical implications
Theoretically, the study enriches the academic literature in a number of ways. The study
widens our understanding on the enabling side of EL by displaying the positive impact of
EL on employee’s IWB (Cheong et al., 2016). The study additionally enriches the
leadership-innovation literature by exploring the mediating impact of KS between EL and
IWB which has not been studied by the researchers so far. The research conducted also
establishes the significance of RC as a moderator between EL and KS. The study is one of a
kind that highlights the importance of RC (as a boundary condition) in strengthening the
relationship between EL and IWB, which makes a distinctive contribution to the role theory
and leadership-innovation literature. The results of the study also present EL as an
important style for fostering IWB as compared to the well-established transformational
leadership which has been found to show mixed results as regards encouraging
employees’ IWB (Shankar et al., 2017).

5.2 Practical implications

Practically, the findings of the study can be utilized by the leaders for promoting employee’s
IWB. The authors propose the adoption of EL style for encouraging employee’s IWB
(Chen et al., 2011). The results show that an empowering leader by sharing power and
authority with the followers (Gyu Park et al., 2017) infuses confidence in followers to take
risks and try new things leading to innovations at the work place (Slåtten et al., 2011).
Empowering leaders offer sufficient scope to the followers for exploration at work (Gkorezis,
2016) which consequentially encourages employee’s IWB. The feeling of reciprocation
created by an empowering leader (Vecchio et al., 2010) also stimulates followers to act
creatively (Zhang and Zhou, 2014) and come up with innovative ideas and suggestions for
contributing toward the development of the organization. Additionally, the research
reaffirms how empowering leaders encourage KS in organizations (Srivastava et al., 2006;
Tung and Chang, 2011; Xue et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2014; Wu and Lee, 2017), which in turn
encourages IWB (Kamas ak and Bulutlar, 2010; Sáenz et al., 2012; Ritala et al., 2015). An
empowering leader at the first place promotes KS by setting himself as an example by

PAGE 924 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019

freely sharing knowledge with others in the organization (Spreitzer and Quinn, 1996; Arnold
et al., 2000). Empowering leaders by encouraging participative decision-making and
prompting followers to collaboratively solve problems (Xue et al., 2011; Wu and Lee, 2017)
create a nurturing climate for KS among the team members in the organization.
Distinctively, the relevance of RC in encouraging KS and IWB in the organizationis
established by the researchers. In lieu of the supporting results for moderating impact of RC
between EL and KS, the authors suggest leaders should not just clearly establish
unambiguous job descriptions but also convey employees what is expected of them. The
clarity of role fosters employee’s control over surroundings and enhances their self-
confidence (Hall, 2008) which sequentially encourages followers to share knowledge and
work collectively toward finding innovative solutions in the organization. The proposed
positive impact of EL in enhancing the RC of the followers (Harris et al., 2014) further
substantiates the choice of an EL style for promoting innovative behavior at the workplace.

6. Limitation and future scope

The study is subject to several limitations. Cross-sectional nature of the study limits the
authors from establishing the causality between EL and IWB. A longitudinal study can be
conducted in future to draw more definitive generalizations and examine whether EL leads
to IWB over a long period of time considering the expected behavioral changes of the
leader. As self-reported measures were usedwith respect to the EL, KS, RC and IWB, there
is a need to interpret the results with caution because of the common method bias.
However, the authors have indeed taken a series of steps to reduce the chances of the
common method bias and improve the applicability of the findings. The researchers in the
future are encouraged to examine the relationship between EL and IWB by considering
other potential mediators such as felt responsibility for organizational change and quality
leader member exchanges, which have been proposed as the outcome of EL. Likewise, in
place of RC, other potential mediators can be considered to examine the relationship
between EL and IWB. Future research can also continue in the lines of drawing a
comparison between empowering and transformational leadership and their impact on IWB
in the organization.

7. Conclusion
In conclusion, the study enhances our understanding on the impact of EL on IWB. The
moderated mechanism via the mediating impact of KS and moderating impact of RC
provides rich insights on how leaders today can encourage innovative behavior of the
followers by not just empowering them but also encouraging them in sharing knowledge
with each other. The study further comprehends the relevance of RC which moderates the
relationship between EL and KS and affects the indirect relationship between EL on IWB.
The findings of study can be used by the leaders to foster KS activities in organizations by
empowering employees for promotive innovative work environment.

References
Afsar, B. (2016), “The impact of person-organization fit on innovative work behavior: the mediating effect
of knowledge sharing behavior”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 104-122.
Afsar, B.F., Badir, Y. and Bin Saeed, B. (2014), “Transformational leadership and innovative work
behavior”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 114 No. 8, pp. 1270-1300.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. and Rapp, A. (2005), “To empower or not to empower your sales force? An
empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and
performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 945-955.

VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 925

 Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B. and Kramer, S.J. (2004), “Leader behaviors and the
work environment for creativity: perceived leader support”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 5-32.
Amundsen, S. and Martinsen, Ø.L. (2014), “Empowering leadership: construct clarification,
conceptualization, and validation of a new scale”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 487-511.
Amundsen, S. and Martinsen, Ø.L. (2015), “Linking empowering leadership to job satisfaction, work
effort, and creativity: the role of self-leadership and psychological empowerment”, Journal of Leadership
and Organizational Studies, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 304-323.
Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A. and Drasgow, F. (2000), “The empowering leadership
questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 249-269.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F.O., Zhou, Q. and Hartnell, C.A. (2012), “Transformational leadership, innovative
behavior, and task performance: test of mediation and moderation processes”, Human Performance,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Baer, M. (2012), “Putting creativity to work: the implementation of creative ideas in organizations”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1102-1119.

Bagheri, A. (2017), “The impact of entrepreneurial leadership on innovation work behavior and
opportunity recognition in high-technology SMEs”, The Journal of High Technology Management
Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 159-166.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall,
Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, S.A. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.

Biemann, T., Kearney, E. and Marggraf, K. (2015), “Empowering leadership and managers’ career
perceptions: examining effects at both the individual and the team level”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 775-789.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.-G. and Lee, J.-N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge
sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational
climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S.A. and Griesser, D. (2007), “Follower behavior and organizational
performance: the impact of transformational leaders”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 15-26.
Bos-Nehles, A., Bondarouk, T. and Nijenhuis, K. (2017), “Innovative work behavior in knowledge-
intensive public sector organizations: the case of supervisors in the Netherlands fire services”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 379-398.
Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J. and Tishler, A. (2011), “How CEO empowering leadership shapes top
management team processes: implications for firm performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 399-411.
Chang, S.J., Witteloostuijn, A.V. and Eden, L. (2010), “Common method variance in international business
research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 178-184.
Chen, A.S.Y. and Hou, Y.H. (2016), “The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and climates for
innovation on creativity: a moderated mediation examination”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 1-13.

Chen, G., Sharma, P.N., Edinger, S.K., Shapiro, D.L. and Farh, J.L. (2011), “Motivating and demotivating
forces in teams: cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 541-557.
Cheong, M., Spain, S.M., Yammarino, F.J. and Yun, S. (2016), “Two faces of empowering leadership:
enabling and burdening”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 602-616.
Choi, S.B., Kim, K., Ullah, S.E. and Kang, S.W. (2016), “How transformational leadership facilitates
innovative behavior of Korean workers: examining mediating and moderating processes”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 459-479.

PAGE 926 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019

Choy Chong, S. (2006), “KM critical success factors: a comparison of perceived importance versus
implementation in Malaysian ICT companies”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 230-256.
De Jong, J. and Den Hartog, D. (2010), “Measuring innovative work behavior”, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
De Spiegelaere, S., Van Gyes, G., De Witte, H. and Van Hootegem, G. (2015), “Job design, work
engagement and innovative work behavior: a multi-level study on Karasek’s learning hypothesis”,
Management Revu, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 123-137.
De Villiers, J.R. and Stander, M.W. (2011), “Psychological empowerment, work engagement and turnover
intention: the role of leader relations and role clarity in a financial institution”, Journal of Psychology in
Africa, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 405-412.
Dewettinck, K. and van Ameijde, M. (2011), “Linking leadership empowerment behavior to employee
attitudes and behavioral intentions: testing the mediating role of psychological empowerment”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 284-305.
Dhar, R.L. (2016), “Ethical leadership and its impact on service innovative behavior: the role of LMX and
job autonomy”, Tourism Management, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 139-148.
Dierendonck, D. and Dijkstra, M. (2012), “The role of the follower in the relationship between empowering
leadership and empowerment: a longitudinal investigation”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 42
No. S1, pp. 1-20.
Dorenbosch, L., Engen, M.L.V. and Verhagen, M. (2005), “On-the-job innovation: the impact of job
design and human resource management through production ownership”, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 129-141.
Eatough, E.M., Chang, C.H., Miloslavic, S.A. and Johnson, R.E. (2011), “Relationships of role stressors
with organizational citizenship behavior: a Meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 3,
pp. 619-632.
Feng, C., Huang, X. and Zhang, L. (2016), “A multilevel study of transformational leadership, dual
organizational change and innovative behavior in groups”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 855-877.
Fock, H., Hui, M.K., Au, K. and Bond, M.H. (2013), “Moderation effects of power distance on the
relationship between types of empowerment and employee satisfaction”, Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 281-298.

Fried, Y., Slowik, L.H., Shperling, Z., Franz, C., Ben-David, H.A., Avital, N. and Yeverechyahu, U. (2003),
“The moderating effect of job security on the relation between role clarity and job performance: a
longitudinal field study”, Human Relations, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 787-805.
Gao, L., Janssen, O. and Shi, K. (2011), “Leader trust and employee voice: the moderating role of
empowering leader behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 787-798.
Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y. and Cooper, C. (2008), “A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and
job performance: examining main and moderating effects”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 2,
pp. 227-271.
Gkorezis, P. (2016), “Principal empowering leadership and teacher innovative behavior: a moderated
mediation model”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 1030-1044.
Gyu Park, J., Gyu Park, J., Sik Kim, J., Sik Kim, J., Yoon, S.W., Yoon, S.W., Joo, B.K. and Joo, B.K. (2017),
“The effects of empowering leadership on psychological well-being and job engagement: the mediating
role of psychological capital”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 350-367.
Halbesleben, J.R., Neveu, J.P., Paustian-Underdahl, S.C. and Westman, M. (2014), “Getting to the ‘COR’
understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory”, Journal of Management, Vol. 40
No. 5, pp. 1334-1364.
Hall, M. (2008), “The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity,
psychological empowerment and managerial performance”, Accounting, Organizations and Society,
Vol. 33 Nos 2/3, pp. 141-163.
Harris, J.K., Mueller, N.L. and Snider, D. (2013), “Social media adoption in local health departments
nationwide”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 103 No. 9, pp. 1700-1707.

VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 927

 Harris, T.B., Li, N., Boswell, W.R., Zhang, X.A. and Xie, Z. (2014), “Getting what’s new from newcomers:
empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the socialization context”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 567-604.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress”, The American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 287-302.
Jung, D.D., Wu, A. and Chow, C.W. (2008), “Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of
CEOs’ transformational leadership on firm innovation”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 582-594.

Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964), Organizational Stress:
Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, Wiley, New York, NY.

Kamasak, R. and Bulutlar, F. (2010), “The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation”, European
Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 306-317.
Koryak, O., Mole, K.F., Lockett, A., Hayton, J.C., Ucbasaran, D. and Hodgkinson, G.P. (2015),
“Entrepreneurial leadership, capabilities and firm growth”, International Small Business Journal:
Researching Entrepreneurship, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 89-105.
Kuo, R.Z., Lai, M.F. and Lee, G.G. (2011), “The impact of empowering leadership for KMS adoption”,
Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 1120-1140.
Lee, J., Lee, H. and Park, J.G. (2014), “Exploring the impact of empowering leadership on knowledge
sharing, absorptive capacity and team performance in IT service”, Information Technology & People,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 366-386.
Lorinkova, N.M., Pearsall, M.J. and Sims, H.P. (2013), “Examining the differential longitudinal
performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 573-596.
Malloch, K. (2014), “Beyond transformational leadership to greater engagement: inspiring innovation in
complex organizations”, Nurse Leader, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 60-63.

Martin, S.L., Liao, H. and Campbell, E.M. (2013), “Directive versus empowering leadership: a field
experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 1372-1395.
Mueller, J. (2012), “Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural antecedents”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 435-447.
Muller, D., Judd, C.M. and Yzerbyt, V.Y. (2005), “When moderation is mediated and mediation is
moderated”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 852-863.
Newman, A., Allen, B. and Miao, Q. (2015), “I can see clearly now: the moderating effects of role
clarity”, On Subordinate Responses to Ethical Leadership’’, Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 611-628.
Ng, T.W. and Feldman, D.C. (2012), “Employee voice behavior: a meta-analytic test of the conservation of
resources framework”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 216-234.
Ogbonnaya, C. and Valizade, D. (2016), “High performance work practices, employee outcomes and
organizational performance: a 2-1-2 multilevel mediation analysis”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 16, pp. 1-21.
Parker, S.K. and Collins, C.G. (2010), “Taking stock: integrating and differentiating multiple proactive
behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 633-662.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 539-569.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Prieto, I. and Pérez-Santana, M. (2014), “Managing innovative work behavior: the role of human resource
practices”, Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 184-208.

PAGE 928 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019

Radaelli, G., Lettieri, E., Mura, M. and Spiller, N. (2014), “Knowledge sharing and innovative work
behavior in healthcare: a micro-level investigation of direct and indirect effects”, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 400-414.
Reuvers, M., Van Engen, M.L., Vinkenburg, C.J. and Wilson-Evered, E. (2008), “Transformational
leadership and innovative work behavior: exploring the relevance of gender differences”, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 227-244.

Ritala, P., Olander, H., Michailova, S. and Husted, K. (2015), “Knowledge sharing, knowledge leaking
and relative innovation performance: an empirical study”, Technovation, Vol. 35, pp. 22-31.

Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J. and Lirtzman, S.I. (1970), “Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 150-163.

Sáenz, J., Aramburu, N. and Blanco, C.E. (2012), “Knowledge sharing and innovation in Spanish and
Colombian high-tech firms”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 919-933.
Sagnak, M. (2012), “The empowering leadership and teachers’ innovative behavior: the mediating role of
innovation climate”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1635-1641.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1977), “An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 427-456.
Shanker, R., Bhanugopan, R., Van der Heijden, B.I. and Farrell, M. (2017), “Organizational climate for
innovation and organizational performance: the mediating effect of innovative work behavior”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 67-77.

Sims, H.P., Jr, Faraj, S. and Yun, S. (2009), “When should a leader be directive or empowering?
How to develop your own situational theory of leadership”, Business Horizons, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 149-158.

Slåtten, T., Svensson, G. and Sværi, S. (2011), “Empowering leadership and the influence of a humorous
work climate on service employees’ creativity and innovative behavior in frontline service jobs”,
International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 267-284.
Spreitzer, G.M. and Quinn, R.E. (1996), “Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders”,
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 237-261.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M. and Locke, E.A. (2006), “Empowering leadership in management teams:
effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49
No. 6, pp. 1239-1251.
Tuckey, M.R., Bakker, A.B. and Dollard, M.F. (2012), “Empowering leaders optimize working
conditions for engagement: a multilevel study”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 17
No. 1, p. 15.
Tung, H.L. and Chang, Y.H. (2011), “Effects of empowering leadership on performance in management
team: mediating effects of knowledge sharing and team cohesion”, Journal of Chinese Human Resources
Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 43-60.
Vecchio, R.P., Justin, J.E. and Pearce, C.L. (2010), “Empowering leadership: an examination of
mediating mechanisms within a hierarchical structure”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 530-542.
Wang, D., Gan, C. and Wu, C. (2016), “LMX and employee voice: a moderated mediation model of
psychological empowerment and role clarity”, Personnel Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 605-615.
Wu, W.L. and Lee, Y.C. (2017), “Empowering group leaders encourages knowledge sharing: integrating
the social exchange theory and positive organizational behavior perspective”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 474-491.
Xerri, M.J. and Brunetto, Y. (2013), “Fostering innovative behavior: the importance of employee
commitment and organisational citizenship behavior”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 24 No. 16, pp. 3163-3177.
Xue, Y., Bradley, J. and Liang, H. (2011), “Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge
sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 299-312.
Yidong, T. and Xinxin, L. (2013), “How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work
behavior: a perspective of intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 116 No. 2,
pp. 441-455.

VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 929

 Zhang, X. and Bartol, K.M. (2010), “Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 107-128.
Zhang, X. and Zhou, J. (2014), “Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee
creativity: interaction effects and a mediating mechanism”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 150-164.
Zheng, X., Thundiyil, T., Klinger, R. and Hinrichs, A.T. (2016), “Curvilinear relationships between role
clarity and supervisor satisfaction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 110-126.

Further reading
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. and Reno, R.R. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
De Jong, J.P. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’ innovative behavior”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-64.

Lin, H.F. (2007), “Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study”, International
Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 No. 3/4, pp. 315-332.

About the authors

Umamaheswara Rao Jada is a Research Scholar at the Vinod Gupta School of
Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India. His research
interests rest mainly in the study of employee voice behavior and Leadership.
Umamaheswara Rao Jada is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: maheshj@
[Link]

Susmita Mukhopadhyay is an Associate Professor at the Vinod Gupta School of

Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India. Her areas of
specialization are organizational health and spiritual health, organizational maturity and
flexibility, HR analytics and positive psychology.
Rohit Titiyal is a Research Scholar at the Vinod Gupta School of Management, Indian
Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India. His research interests rest mainly in
the study of research methodology and business analytics.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
[Link]/licensing/[Link]
Or contact us for further details: permissions@[Link]

PAGE 930 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 23 NO. 5 2019