- 1 -

Ms. A W M M Atapattu is a Lecturer of Department of Human Resource Management, Faculty of Management & Finance, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.Dr. James Warn is a Senior Lecturer, School of Business, University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia.

Transformational Leadership in Promoting Knowledge Workers’ Propensity for Knowledge Management Processes

A W M M Atapattu James Warn

Abstract

Many Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives adopted by organizations fail as a result of Knowledge Workers (KWs) being reluctant to engage in the requisite activities for achieving successful outcomes in KM projects. Internal leadership has been found to be a crucial antecedent for engaging KWs in these KM processes. This concept paper addresses the problem of how leaders can more effectively engage KWs in Knowledge Management activities. Although there is substantial research to indicate that transformational leadership has a global association with increased innovation and KM, there remains little theoretical development of which specific transformational leaderships are important. The paper draws on the transformational leadership theory to analyze how the specific transformational leaderships of Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration, uniquely foster subordinate engagement in specific activities that support KM propensity. The paper concludes with a conceptual model that enables theoretical development and testing of the discrete effects of transformational leadership s on KM success.

Keywords: knowledge management success, knowledge workers, transformational leadership

- 2 -

Introduction

Knowledge has been recognized as one of the most important resources of the firm (Grant, 1996; Nonaka and Toyama, 2005). In the resource-based view of the firm, knowledge management (KM) is viewed as a strategy for creating sustainable competitive advantages (Hansen, 2002; Muller, 2013). Knowledge is considered to be a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information and expert insights that provide a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and internal meaning structures in people’s minds (Bourdeau and Couillard, 1990). KM implies a strategy which consists of a series of practices, systems, policies and guidelines that enable the creation, sharing and application of knowledge in order to gain growth and continuity of organizational performance (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005).

As KM is an active adaptive process, rather a procedural activity, employees need to be energized and engaged in the creation, dissemination and application of knowledge. In addition to setting in place the appropriate organizational processes and reward structures, firms also need the right sort of internal leadership to make the KM activities come alive. Leadership in this context is broadly defined as the influence processes affecting the actions of followers (knowledge workers) and the choice of objectives for the group or organization (Yukl, 1981). Transformational leadership approaches have been identified as particularly pertinent in improving a number of aspects of KM, and in particular for increasing engagement in the KM processes. This paper provides a conceptual analysis of the relevance of transformational leadership approaches to KM.

Although a number of studies have identified the relevance of transformational leadership to KM (Crawford, 2005; Politis, 2002), there remains the need to better specify how these transformational behaviours result in an increased propensity for KM. These linkages need to be better theoretically understood and empirically tested. This paper seeks to analyze how the specific dimensions of transformational leadership can influence knowledge workers directly and indirectly to engage specific activities that underpin the KM process.

Although the direct effects of transformational leadership on effective KM have been well documented, the actual mechanisms by which transformational leadership behaviours shape KM activities is not that well understood (Yang, 2007); Politis, 2002). Some researchers have attempted to identify the mediating variables that

- 3 -

transformational leadership might influence in order to produce an indirect effect on KM. For instance, Tse & Mitchell (2010) proposed a conceptual model in which transformational leadership might influence open mindedness and the quality of leader-member exchanges. This model hypothesized that there would be a global, direct and indirect effect of transformational leadership on KM. Jung, Chow & Wu (2003) tested a mediation model predicting organizational innovation which influenced subordinate empowerment and an innovation-supporting organizational climate. These studies consider transformational leadership at a global level rather than differentiating between specific transformational behaviours. Bass (1995) defines four transformational leadership behaviours: Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration. A global score on transformational leadership is obtained by summing together the scores from the four subscales. However, different leaders can vary in the extent to which they pursue all four transformational behaviours. Furthermore, not all of the four transformational leadership behaviours might be relevant to enhancing engagement in KM processes.

Further, the literature on the association between KM success and leadership tends to rely on overall organizational performance as a measure of KM success (Lin & Lee, 2008; Nguyen & Mohamed, 2011; Yang, 2007, 2010; Li et al, 2013). However, as leadership is an influence process directed towards individuals or followers, an organizational level measure of success is likely to minimize the effects of leadership at the individual or group level. The current analysis follows the recommendation of Jennex (2005), and addresses the effects of leadership on the individual’s tendency to engage in KM processes and treats this propensity as the indicator of KM success.

There has been increasing implementation of KM programmes as a key business strategy by firms over the last decade. In a global survey, KM was found to be one of the top ten most used tools (Rigby and Bilodeau, 2007). It was also reported that Asian companies are the top users of KM as a tool for taking advantage of the intellectual assets of the workforce to strengthen organizational performance. There has been a growing trend to transform organizations into knowledge-based organizations by creating an enterprise-wide knowledge-driven culture, employing predominantly knowledge workers, considering innovation as a key activity, and creating a learning organization and transforming enterprise knowledge into shareholder value through the right information and communication technologies (MacKinsey & Company, 2013).

- 4 -

However, in spite of this interest and the trend, the KM efforts of many firms have failed to achieve the expected success (Durmusoglu et al, 2014) where KM success is defined as reusing knowledge to improve organizational performance by providing the appropriate knowledge to those who need it when it is needed (Jennex, 2005). KM programmes are found to be continuously ranked among the bottom five in terms of satisfaction. Consistent with the above empirical findings, researchers (Ford & Chan, 2003; De Long & Fashey, 2000; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Wong, 2005; Lam & Chua, 2005; King 2008) have found that a majority of KM initiatives failed to achieve the expected success. Further, many researches (Ardichivili et al., 2007; Akham, Jafari & Fathian, 2006; Ajmal & Kekale, 2010; Du Plessis, 2007) state that companies do not fully understand how to successfully foster knowledge processes by initiating KM. Although companies allocate huge budgets on KM activities there is little evidence to indicate that these efforts result in any significant impact on overall performance. Often when KM projects fail to deliver their expected benefits does the firm eventually abandon the project, despite the resources and capital invested. In light of these experiences it is appropriate to question why KM initiatives fail and to analyze the factors that determine the success of KM initiatives.

Reviews of various KM projects indicate that a significant indicator of failure is the lack of alignment between the various organizational practices within the firm (Davenport et al., 1998; Davenport & Prusak 1998; De Long & Fahey 2000; Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000). In particular, the configuration of the IT component that underpins the KM system needs to be complemented by a set of organizational mechanisms that encourage and promote the sharing and reuse of organizational knowledge. Barth (2007) concludes that studies looking for causes of KM initiative failures come to a similar conclusion that the key factors are an absence of essential organizational practices such as knowledge culture, leadership behaviour, connectivity, lack of authority, poor communication, lack of motivation, and an over-reliance on technology. Importantly, internal leadership has been found to be a common key factor contributing to the success or failure of KM projects. In an industry survey, internal leadership accounted for 30% of the contribution of the factors for success and 19% of the factors for failure (MacKinsey & Company, 2013).

Leadership has been found to be involved in a number of factors that enhance KM performance (Bryant, 2003; Connelly & Kelloway, 2003; Lin & Lee, 2004; Nguyen & Mohamed, 2011; Yang, 2007, 2010; Li et al, 2013). Other studies identify the role that that leadership behaviours serve as a prerequisite for successful KM initiatives

- 5 -

(Tse & Mitchell, 2010; Politis, 2002; Li et al, 2013). In knowledge organizations, leaders are first and foremost responsible for learning both amongst individuals as well as at the level of the organization (Baines, 1997). Scharmer (2001) states that leaders must be able to see the emerging opportunities before they become manifest in the marketplace and leaders play a crucial role in building and maintaining an organizational culture of learning. They specifically infer that leaders must attach a high value to knowledge, encourage questioning the status quo and experiment and empower all members of the organization by developing a shared vision, providing resources, delegating authority, celebrating success and most importantly by being a learning architect. Overall, internal leadership appears to contribute importantly to KM activities by creating a dynamic interaction between leaders and knowledge workers that encourages and energizes the knowledge workers to engage in KM processes.

There are two important ways in which leaders might influence KM behaviour amongst employees (Politis, 2002; Laksman, 2007; Viitala, 2004): the leader’s own realization of the importance of KM to the performance of the organization is instrumental in the establishment of both technological and socio cognitive routes for managing knowledge in the organization (Lakshman, 2007) and leaders motivating, encouraging and energizing followers to be engaged in KM activities. Important leadership behaviours relate to linking KM with rewards, maintaining effective interpersonal relationships, establishing a learning culture, cultivating trust, being a role model and specifying individual KM requirements (Viitala, 2004). Leaders are involved in setting up the appropriate organizational setting by incorporating both technological and non-technological requirements to provide the required direction for KWs and motivate KWs to engage in KM activities through specific leader behaviours.

A number of key leadership behaviours have been linked to KM success. The follower’s relationship with the leader within an organization is crucial in KM behaviours. Lang (2001) stated that “the real task of KM is to connect people to people to enable them to share what expertise and knowledge they have at the moment” (Lang, 2001). Also, Hitt (1995) identified that leaders need to empower all members of the learning organization by developing a shared vision, providing resources, delegating authority, celebrating success, and most importantly by being a learning architect. These findings draw attention, among other things (i.e., organizational process and mechanisms), to the roles played by leadership in developing and linking these

- 6 -

factors for successful KM initiatives. The research indicates that the role of leadership for any KM strategy is crucial (Pan & Scarbrough, 1998). However, in order to provide a more developed analysis of the role of leadership in KM programmes, it is necessary to first investigate what is required in Knowledge Management (KM) and what factors contribute to Knowledge Management success. The rest of the paper is organised as follows. A brief overview of the characteristics of knowledge and knowledge management is provided and an operational definition of knowledge success is outlined. The association between leadership and knowledge management success is reviewed and the efficacy of transformational leadership is analyzed. Finally, a theoretical model is proposed which states relationships between specific transformational leaderships and discrete KMs amongst employees. The limitations and practical implications of the model are considered.

Knowledge, Knowledge Management (KM) and Knowledge Management Success (KMS)

Knowledge

It is well recognized that knowledge in itself is a very complex entity (Clark & Rollo, 2001). Broadly, knowledge has been described as information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). In other words, knowledge is basically an understanding of information and their associated patterns (Bierly et al., 2000). Further, knowledge is embedded and flows through multiple entities within a firm, including individuals with domain expertise, specific best known methods, or lessons learned from similar experiences, documents, routines, systems, and methods (Hall, 1992; Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Therefore, knowledge can be considered to be internal, meaning structures in people’s minds (Bourdreau & Couillard, 1999). Also it is the only resource that, when used, can enhance the value of other capital and does not diminish in value (Harris, 2001). On the other hand, knowledge increases in value with use, while disuse may lead to loss or forgetfulness (Alavi, Kayworth & Leidner, 2005). The special characteristics of knowledge set it apart from other resources that depreciate overtime. Further, knowledge as a construct seems to be an invisible entity and at the same time it drives the bottom line of an organization (Pascarella, 1997). The value of knowledge is increased when it has a key purpose and focuses on mission, core values and strategic priorities. Knowledge assets, like money or equipment, exist and are worth cultivating only in the context of the strategy used to apply them (Stewart, 1997).

- 7 -

For the purpose of analysis, knowledge can be categorized into explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is easily articulated, coded and transferred (Nonaka, 1995). Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is far more difficult to articulate and is derived from individual experiences and thus is difficult to code and transfer (Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Although both types of knowledge exist within the person, the difference is that one is subjected to articulation and thus can be separated from its source, i.e., the person who possesses knowledge, and the other is that it cannot be taken separately from a person as the person who possesses it fails to articulate it. On the other hand, a tacit form of knowledge is subconsciously understood or applied, difficult to articulate, developed through direct action and experience, and shared through conversation, story-telling, etc. Blumentitt and Johnston (1999) contend that information can be captured and stored in digital form whereas tacit knowledge repositories reside only in intelligent systems, which are within individuals. Tacit knowledge needs to be considered as ‘‘knowledge-in-action’’ which presumes that this is a kind of knowledge that has not been articulated as opposed to explicit knowledge which is readily accessible within the organizational domain (Platts & Yeung, 2000). It is also said that tacit knowledge is the antithesis of explicit knowledge, in that it is not easily codified and transferred by more conventional mechanisms such as documents, blueprints, and procedures (Kreiner, 2002). It is also to be noted that tacit knowledge is derived from personal experience; it is subjective as well as difficult to formalize (Nonaka et al., 2000).

Much of what makes people successful in their tasks is tacit/implicit knowledge and the reality is that much of the information that an organization tries to manage is held within the personal and collective experience of the workforce. Tacit knowledge is unarticulated knowledge which resides in a person’s head and is often difficult to describe and transfer. It includes lessons learned, know-how, judgment, rules of thumb, and intuition, which are the key characteristics of a learning organization (Bollinger & Smith, 2001). Both explicit and tacit knowledge are important for organizational performance. However, it is tacit knowledge that is more likely to be crucial for creating sustainable competitive advantage since it is more likely to be rare, unsubstitutable and valuable. Thus, tacit knowledge is considered as a valuable resource that must be managed, and for the firm to sustain competitive advantage, it needs ways of engaging knowledge workers in processes that enable tacit knowledge to be shared and applied.

- 8 -

Knowledge Management

Meanwhile, KM involves a number of iterative activities (i.e., also known as KM processes, KM elements or KM components), some of which are interrelated and could occur simultaneously. The premise of these activities is that KM implies continuous and ongoing renewal of organizational and individual knowledge schemes to anticipate future opportunities and threats (Serban & Luan, 2002). Thus KM activities are the heart of KM which made up knowledge assets and intellectual resources of an organization. Although there are a number of different activities involved in KM, the present analysis considers the role of leadership behaviours in enhancing knowledge creation, knowledge sharing and application of knowledge.

According to Lioria (2006), KM is difficult to define. Adopting a different approach to that of Lioria (2006), a number of researchers believe that defining what is understood by KM may be somewhat simpler than defining knowledge on its own (Quintas, Lefrere & Jones, 1997; Zack, 1999; Nonaka & Thakeuchi, 1995; King, 2008; Ford & Chan, 2003; Alavi et al., 2005) The idea of “management” gives a starting point when considering, for example, the activities that make it up, explaining the processes of creation and transfer or showing its main goals and objectives without the need to define what is understood by knowledge. Although KM is defined in a wide range of ways in the literature (Quintas et al., 1997; Wiig, 1997; Bueno, 1998; Davenport, De Long & Beers, 1998), the existence of common elements in all the definitions allows a generic definition of KM as the set of business policies and actions undertaken for the purpose of favouring the creation of knowledge, its transfer to all firm members and its subsequent application, all of it with a view to achieving distinctive competencies which can give the company a long-term competitive advantage. The basic goal of KM is, therefore, a simultaneous improvement of organizational performance and competitiveness that can provide a sustainable competitive advantage which is valuable, rare and difficult for competitors to imitate and place the firm in a position of leadership within its sector (Alavi, et al; 2005).

Further, KM is a formal, directed process of determining what information a company has that could benefit others and then devising ways to making it easily available to all concerned (Liss, 1999). Therefore, the steps in this process include how knowledge is created, captured, evaluated, cleansed, stored, provided, and used (Chait, 1998). And, the essence of KM is to provide strategies to obtain the right knowledge to the right people at the right time and in the right format (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2005).

- 9 -

Knowledge Management Success

Success or effectiveness is basically understood as the achievement of goals, with goals defined as prospective aspired states. In the business management context, profit usually constitutes the supreme goal. However, this single goal does not provide sufficient guidance for measuring the performance of a range of organizational efforts (Orth, Smolnik & Jennex, 2009). As a result, there are many alternative criteria developed for measuring success in order to meaningfully measure performance across a range of organizational efforts. Among such criteria, are the level of employee satisfaction, level of employee performance, enhanced intellectual capital , quality of products and services, adaptability, innovation, etc. which are intended to be achieved (Anantatmula & Kanungo, 2006). In general, the achievement of intended objectives as a result of strategic planning can be considered as an overall measure of success. Thus, a firm might accept that the achievement of intended KM objectives can be considered as an overall indicator of KM success. However, organizations that initiated KM programmes are still struggling with the development of appropriate metrics to assess the effectiveness of their initiatives (Jennex, 2005) and the existing literature does not provide universally accepted or established criteria for measuring KM success.

After reviewing various KM success definitions, Jennex (2005) has attempted to develop a comprehensive definition of KM success and to identify some more formal and specific measures. Accordingly, Jennex’s (2005) definition of KM success is making a positive effect on improving organizational performance by providing the appropriate knowledge to those who need it when it is needed. Accordingly, KM is expected to have a positive impact on the organization by improving organizational performance. Jennex (2005) describes KM success indicators from both an individual and organizational perspective. From the individual perspective, KM success is defined as a set of processes or employee activities (Jennex & Olfman, 2006). Accordingly, KM success can be measured in terms of the efficient achievement of employee engagement or willingness to engage with targeted creation, sharing and application of knowledge as a result of undertaking KM initiatives. Consequently, the higher propensity of employee engagement with knowledge processes and activities (i.e., acquisition, creation, sharing, and application) is the indicator of KM success. This definition of knowledge success provides a potentially useful dependent variable for investigating the relationship between leaders and employees in relation to knowledge management. This perspective therefore focuses on measuring how

- 10 -

much KM contributes to improving organizational performance through improving employee engagement with KM activities.

At the level of the organizational perspective, Jennex & Olfman (2006) define a set of complementary organizational measures. KM success is seen as the extent of the soundness of the KM system (Jennex & Olfman, 2006). For example, KM system success can be defined as making KM system components more effective by improving search speed, accuracy, etc. For example, a KM system that enhances search and retrieval functions enhances the effectiveness of decision making by improving the ability of the decision maker to find and retrieve appropriate knowledge in a timelier manner. The implication is that by increasing KM system effectiveness, decision-making capability is enhanced leading to positive impacts on the organization. Enhancing KM system effectiveness makes KM more successful as well as being a reflection of KM success.

Leadership and Leadership Behaviours

Leadership is defined broadly as influential processes affecting the actions of followers and the choice of the objectives for the group or organization (Yukl, 1981). Various theories of leadership have emerged over the past hundred years such as the trait theory, behavioural theory, situational theories, leader-member exchange theory and neocharismatic theories. By the early 1980s, there was growing disillusionment with the extent to which the extant leadership theory was able to explain how leaders could exert influence on a collective and how leaders could influence quite significant change at the organizational or social level (Hunt, 1999). A number of new approaches to leadership emerged - charismatic, transformational, and visionary - and although each approach had its own genesis there were a number of overlapping themes (House & Aditya, 1997). According to these approaches, a key role of the leader was to create a shared understanding around the nature of the organizational reality and the organization’s mission and values. By providing the organization with a vision, the leader had now become the manager of meaning. Since knowledge is connected to the internal meaning structures in people’s minds (Bourdreau & Couillard, 1999), the new theories have particular significance for research in the area of leadership and KM.

- 11 -

Association of Leadership Behaviours with Knowledge Management Success

A leadership focus on KM emphasizes the human and social process, or the soft elements, that need to be integrated within the organizational practices in order to achieve successful KM outcomes (King, 2008; Singh, 2008; Anantatmula and Kanungo, 2006). The factors grouped under the umbrella term of soft antecedents for KM include communication, organizational culture, leadership and capacity for change management (Anantatmula and Kanungo, 2006; Menkhoff et al., 2006). This diverse range of antecedents seems to offer a potentially arbitrary set of factors to consider. However, attempts have been made to group potentially important soft antecedents into more coherent models. Stankosky and Baldanza (1999) proposed a four pillar KM model, which describes four antecedents which are essential for achieving success from KM. The four pillars are: leadership, teamwork, technology and organizational learning. Leadership is considered as the most important factor since it drives the shared values for knowledge creation and sharing thereby promoting KM success. A champion or leader is essential to develop the strategic planning, set specific and general goals for KM, initiate formal KM roles. Mumford et al. (2002) and also identify the importance of leaders in influencing innovative work amongst knowledge workers. The increasing complexity of work processes and the increasingly competitive business environment have created new challenges for organizations, and the leader’s capacity to encourage and energize followers towards KM activities has become an increasingly important contributor to successful KM outcomes (Dess & Picken, 2000). In the area of innovation, leadership has been identified by many researchers as being one of the most, if not the most, important factor (Amabile, 1998; Jung, 2001; Jung et al., 2003). These scholars suggest that leaders can affect followers’ KM behaviours in both explicit and implicit ways. An example of an implicit effect is leaders catering to the follower’s intrinsic motivation and higher level needs, which are known to be important sources of knowledge creation and application (Tierney et al., 1999). Explicitly, leaders can support KM behaviours by establishing a work environment that encourages employees to engage in knowledge creation, sharing and application. An example would be where the leader creates an appropriate setting for KW to try out different approaches without worrying about being punished because outcomes are negative (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996).

- 12 -

Conceptually, leaders of an organization or a group can affect employee propensity for KM processes in several different ways. First, they define and shape the work contexts within which employees interact to define goals, problems, and solutions (Amabile, 1998; Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993). By articulating a vision that emphasizes knowledge over physical assets in creating competitive advantage for the business, leaders can direct employees’ individual and collective efforts towards innovative work processes and outcomes (Amabile, 1996). More broadly, organizational leaders are a key source of influence on organizational culture (Schein, 1992). By creating and sustaining an organizational climate and culture that nurtures creative effort, sharing knowledge and facilitating diffusion of learning, leaders can significantly boost employee propensity for KM processes (Yukl, 2001). Finally, leaders can develop and maintain a system that values and rewards KM-related performance through compensation and other human resource-related policies. When a company provides intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for efforts to acquire new skills and to experiment with creative work approaches, employees’ desire to engage in creative endeavours and sharing such knowledge collectively will be constantly reinforced (Jung, 2001; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988).

Some specific leader behaviours appear to be positively associated with an employee’s tendency to engage in KM processes. For example, Tse and Mitchell (2010) and Uhl-Bien, Marion and McKelve (2007) found positive associations between democratic, considerate, and participative leader behaviours and subordinates’ creativity and knowledge sharing. Redmond et al. (1993) found that, when leaders supported constructive problem solving and followers’ self-efficacy, followers displayed higher levels of knowledge sharing and application. In similar vein, Scott and Bruce (1994) found that the role expectations of a supervisor had a positive influence on subordinates’ innovative and knowledge sharing behaviour. Tierney et al. (1999) focused on the quality of leader-follower relationship based on the leader-member exchange theory and found that it was positively related to employee knowledge creation, sharing and application.

Conceptualization and Conceptual Model

The above review identified a number of ways in which leadership can enhance follower engagement with KM processes. In particular, the leader can shape the work contexts within which employees interact to encourage a climate in which employees can engage in knowledge creation, sharing and application. Additionally, leaders can encourage and energize followers towards KM activities by appealing to the values

- 13 -

and intrinsic motivation of the employee. Aspects of the transformational leadership model are aligned closely with these key leader functions. In the following section the potential efficacy of transformational leadership for enhancing KM is analyzed in more detail.

Transformational Leadership and Knowledge Worker’s Propensity for Knowledge Management Processes

Transformational leadership is defined as a process in which leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of morality and motivation (Burns, 1978). A key element of transformation is the ability to cultivate the needs of the follower in a follower-centered manner and in turn inspire followers to exceed their own self-interest for the benefit of the organization. Transformational leaders seek to raise the consciousness of followers by appealing to higher ideas and moral values, liberty, justice, equality, peace, and humanitarianism (Bass, 1985). Further, transformational leaders focus on transcending self-interest and elevating followers’ subjective probability of success. Yet transformational leaders change their expectations by first understanding and re-aligning the organization’s expectations with a new vision and a revision of its values and norms (Bass, 1985).

A transformational leader inspires followers to exceed their own self-interest for the good of the organization and increases the confidence and motivation of followers to obtain performance-beyond expectations (Bass, 1985). A transformational leader is likely to enlist followers in KM processes through encouraging and emphasizing shared values and involvement, questioning assumptions, being inquisitive, taking intelligent risks and coming up with creative observations and breaking through learning boundaries (Vera & Crossan, 2004; Lam, 2002). In the context of KM human relationships within an organization are crucial for knowledge creation, sharing, and utilization. Transformational leaders increase confidence and motivation amongst followers to perform beyond expectations and this influence increases an individual’s propensity to engage in KM processes. Transformational leaders have an overall global impact on the KW workers engagement with KM processes.

Proposition 1: Transformational leaders increase the confidence and motivation amongst followers to perform beyond expectations and this influence increases knowledge workers’ propensity to engage in KM processes.

- 14 -

Transformational Leader Behaviours and Knowledge Worker’s propensity for Knowledge Management Processes

Using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), Bass (1995) provided an operational measure of four dimensions of transformational leadership as well as measures of transactional leadership, laissez faire leadership and three measures of leadership effectiveness. The transformational behaviours defined in the Bass (1995) model are Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration. The potential relevance of these specific transformational behaviours is considered in the following section.

Idealized Influence refers to the way in which the leader can serve as a role model for subordinates (Bass and Riggio, 2008). The leader shows high levels of confidence and determination in being able to implement the KM project. The leader might even be perceived as charismatic by followers. He is able to build respect, trust and loyalty among members of the organization (Crawford, 2005). Such conditions are essential for intensifying the readiness for knowledge creation, sharing and application among members. Idealized influence enables the leader to form a positive organizational climate that encourages individuals to trust in the leader and also to believe that their co-workers will not act opportunistically in relation to one another. Hence, by building the individual’s trust in other co-workers within the organization, Idealized Influence behaviours would be able to form an organizational trust context that would encourage all individuals within the organization to be willing to engage in KM processes. In other words, due to the trust, individuals would identify more with their co-workers within the organization and thus be willing to commit themselves to working with them (Politis, 2003). The climate of trust means that individuals are likely believe that knowledge exchanges would not damage their own self-interest and that the leader’s influence means that co-workers are unlikely to act opportunistically in relation to one another (Burke et al., 2007). Finally, individuals are also likely to believe that they would be able to gain a reciprocal benefit by engaging in such KM activities (Burke et al., 2007). Further, as the transformational leader emphasizes the group identity, the followers’ self-concept shifts from a personal to a collective one, that is from “I” to “We” (Avolio and Yammarino, 2013). Here, the relationship identity is derived from a dyadic connection and role relationship with the leader (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Therefore, the idealized influence of the transformational leader can facilitate and encourage the creation, sharing and application of knowledge in organizations by creating an appropriate setting which emphasizes trust and respect, which will result in higher engagement with KM processes by the KWs.

- 15 -

Proposition 2: Idealized influence behaviour creates higher levels of follower commitment to the KM processes and higher levels of trust between Knowledge Workers.

Inspirational Motivation refers to the behaviours on the part of the leader aimed at identifying new opportunities for his or her unit/division/company, and for developing, articulating and inspiring others with his or her vision for the future. The leader might appeal to values and ideals to arouse an emotional response in the subordinates (Yukl, 2002; Yukl & Seifert, 2002). Employment of inspirational appeals, consultation and ingratiation are said to be used by transformational leaders to induce employees’ commitment through the transformation of employees’ value systems (i.e., value systems that are aligned with organizational goals) (Emans, Munduate, Klaver & Van de Vliert, 2003). Inspirational appeals are known to be an effective tool for raising subordinates’ enthusiasm towards work requests (Yukl et al., 1996). Thus, inspirational motivation is expected to be exhibited by leaders who communicate with vivid imagery and symbols and in a way that generates enthusiasm (Yukl, 2002; Cable & Judge, 2003). Leaders exhibiting inspirational motivation explain their own objectives clearly for employees, tend to set high standards and encourage norm-based work behaviours. Inspirational Motivation emphasizes intrinsic motivation (Sarvs & Santra, 2001). Transformational leaders act as role models for the followers to imitate (Politis, 2002). Likewise, when the followers mimic these behaviours they also have a positive impact on the other group members. In addition, transformational leaders also transmit to the followers a group identity by expressing the honour of the group’s achievement and inspire followers to accept collective goals by articulating an attractive picture of the group’s future. These behaviours could help followers understand the vision of the organization and to share common interests. Inspirational motivation increases the followers’ identification with collective goals, and with the emphasis on shared values and collective outcomes, enhances the level of cooperation between employees.

Proposition 3: Inspirational Motivation behaviours lead to higher levels of cooperation and team work towards a common KM goal amongst the Knowledge Workers.

Intellectual Stimulation refers to the behaviours by which the transformational leader challenges the followers’ assumptions, traditions, personal beliefs and redefines issues and encourages them to be creative and innovative and attempt new methods (Crawford, 2005). Creativity development within the group setting plays an

- 16 -

important role in KM (Asgari, 2011). The leader can encourage employees to create new knowledge by combining new and effective knowledge and these interactions enhance consequent knowledge sharing and application (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The intellectual stimulation behaviours of the transformational leader facilitate both favourable attitudinal and behavioral change in KWs. As intellectual stimulation redefines issues and encourages KWs to apply new methods the leader will challenge assumptions, values, traditions and personal beliefs. However, these challenges to the status quo are also likely to create a sense of anxiety amongst subordinates in the following areas: one, the leader will create a conflict of duty for subordinates between what they thought was required and what is possible; two, as individuals are encouraged to express their ideas and solutions to problems, the expression of these new ideas can violate social norms and upset the psychological security of the team; three, change can create more tensions and complexity in the social interactions and communications between group members (Bass, 1990). However, if these tensions are handled well by intellectually stimulating the followers, KWs will become receptive to adapting or changing existing approaches to issues and create and apply new knowledge to KM projects, with the overall outcome being higher levels of performance (Bryant, 2003). Therefore, this particular leader behaviour also would encourage KWs to engage in a higher degree of knowledge creation and application.

Proposition 4: Intellectual Simulation behaviour of transformational leaders leads to higher levels of knowledge creation and knowledge application amongst the Knowledge Workers.

Individualized Consideration refers to the behaviours where the leader acts as a coach or mentor, and attends to the developmental needs of employees on an individualized basis (Hater & Bass, 1988). Transformational leaders are more likely to influence followers by getting them personally involved and committed to a project through consultation and ingratiation such as encouraging them to contribute and suggest ways to improve a proposal, or help plan an activity (Yukl, 2002; Yukl & Seifert, 2002; Cable & Judge, 2003). This leadership behaviour transforms followers by helping them to reach their full potential and generate the highest level of performance (Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002). In the area of knowledge management, the leader might even delegate projects to stimulate learning experiences. In knowledge organizations such leader behaviours facilitate the development of the individual worker’s capability by providing a supportive atmosphere and attending to the individual learning needs of each employee (Politis, 2002; Crawford, 2005).

- 17 -

By improving the capability and experience of followers, they become more capable of sharing what they have learned and there will be an overall reciprocal effect on knowledge creation, sharing and subsequent application (Asgari, 2011) Also, according to Shamir, House and Arthur (1993), the Individualized Consideration behaviour of the transformational leader leads to subordinates exerting extra-effort. Individualized Consideration elevates followers’ goals and provides them with the confidence to perform beyond the minimum role requirements specified in the implicit or explicit exchange agreement (Deluga, 1994; Dvir et al., 2002). As Individualized Consideration values and energizes willingness for new and continuous learning, there will be continuous growth in follower performance, and this will increase the KWs capacity and willingness to engage in KM processes.

Proposition 5: Individualized Consideration behaviour of transformational leaders results in increased capacity for Knowledge Workers to engage in KM processes.

The above five propositions can be illustrated in the following diagram. The model indicates that the specific transformational leadership behaviours of Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration contribute in specific ways to the overall propensity to KM.

Figure 1: Conceptual Model

- 18 -

Theoretical and practical Implications

This paper has outlined a conceptual model (Figure 1) that will contribute to the understanding of the association between transformational leadership and KM success in three areas: one, by testing for the direct influence of transformational leadership on KM success; two, by investigating the indirect relationship of the specific transformational leader behaviours on KWs actions; and three, by defining the individual-based approach in order to define KM success. Importantly the model enables a more differentiated understanding of the specific effects of the different transformational leadership behaviours. This paper extends the understanding of the relationship between transformational leadership and KM in a number of ways. It addresses the concerns of Tse & Mitchell, (2010) Jung, Chow & Wu, (2013), who identify a research lacuna existing in relation to the analysis of the specific behaviours that transformational leaders might use to stimulate KM by KWs. Existing studies typically consider the overall style of leadership without focus on particular behaviours within them (for example: Crawford, 2005; Singh, 2008; Debowski, 2006; Lin and Hsiao, 2014). The proposed model extends the current understanding of the association between KM and leadership into a more in-depth perspective. As the research literature typically relies on organizational level measures of KM success (Bryant, 2012; Connelly & Kelloway, 2013; Lin & Lee, 2008; Nguyen & Mohamed, 2011; Yang, 2007, 2010; Li et al, 2013) the proposed model introduces more individual level outcome measures which are more likely to be directly associated with leadership behaviours (Waldman & Yammarino, 1999).

Finally, from a practitioner’s perspective, the proposed model can help KM practitioners to identify, encourage and demonstrate distinctive leadership behaviours to foster targeted KM activities among KWs. As the model indicates, the propensity to engage in different KM behaviours might be associated with specific types of transformational leader behaviour. Thus shaping and reinforcing specific leader behaviours is likely to be crucial for a firm’s ability to manage its knowledge effectively. The proposed model provides pragmatic leadership guidelines for KM practitioners and offers knowledge-based organizations the capacity to develop more effective leadership solutions for managing knowledge. Knowledge-based organizations are likely to encounter difficulties in creating an appropriate KM environment due to their greater focus on information technology and technological infrastructure and their neglect of the human and social process (DeTienne & Jackson, 2001; Lubit, 2001; Stein and Zwass, 1995). The proposed model provides a

- 19 -

set of leadership practices for practitioners to bridge the gap between these so called ‘soft factors’ and the organizational processes set up for KM projects. The model outlines steps to enable practitioners to build KM systems with greater consideration for leadership as a pre requisite of KM success.

Conclusion

Internal leadership has been found to be to be a crucial antecedent for engaging KWs in the KM processes. Although transformational leaderships have been found to be particularly relevant in increasing the propensity towards KW engagement in knowledge processes, there has been only limited analysis of the influence of specific transformational leaderships. The current paper develops the theoretical analysis to hypothesize the relationship between specific transformational leadership behaviours (Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration) and the motivation, capacity and behaviours of the KWs to engage in KM processes.

ReferencesAjmal, M., Helo, P., & Kekale, T. (2010). Critical success factors for knowledge management

in project teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14 (1), 156-168.

Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., & Fathian, M. (2006). Critical success factors of knowledge management systems: a multi-case analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18 (2), 97-113.

Alavi, M., Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2005). An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22 (3), 191-224.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R,. Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–84.

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76, 77-87.

Anantatmula, V. & Kanungo, S. (2006). Structuring the underlying relations among the knowledge management outcomes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 25-42.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.

Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M.L.W., Wentling, T. & Stuedemann, R. (2006). cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 94-107.

- 20 -

Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1102-1112.

Asgari, N. (2011). Providing model of social-human factors’ effect on KM measures. Doctoral thesis, Management department, Tehran University.

Aulawi, H., Sudirman, I., Suryadi, K. & Govindarajn, R. (2009). Knowledge sharing behavior, antecedent and their impact on the individual innovation capability. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 5(12), 2238-2245.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp.29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Avolio, B. J., and Yammarino, F. J. (2013). Reflections, closing thoughts, and future directions. In B. J. Avolio and F. J. Yammarino (Eds). Transformational and charismatic leadership: the road ahead (Monographs in Leadership and Management). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Baines, A. (1997). Exploiting organizational knowledge in the learning organization. Work Study 46(6):202-206.

Barth, S. (2003). A framework for personal knowledge management tools. KM World, 12(1), 20-21.

Bass B. M., (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bass, B. M. and Riggio, R. E. (2008). Transformational leadership. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bierly, P. E., Kessler, E. H., & Christensen, E. W. (2000). Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 13 (6), 595-618.

Blumentritt, R., & Johnston, R. (1999). Towards a strategy for knowledge management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(3), 287-301.

Bollinger, A. S., & Smith, R. D. (2001). Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5 (1), 8-18.

Bourdreau, A., & Couillard, G. (1999). Systems integration and knowledge management. Information Systems Management, 16(4), 24-32,

Brelade, S., & Harman, C. (2000). Using human resources to put knowledge to work. Knowledge Management Review, 3 (1), 26-29.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83 – 93.

Bryant, S. E. (2005). The impact of peer mentoring on organizational knowledge creation sharing: an empirical study in a software firm. Group & Organization Management, 30(3), 319−338.

Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: a multi-level review and integration. Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606-632.

- 21 -

Burns J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers’ upward influence tactic strategies: the role of manager personality and supervisor leadership style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 197-212.

Cabrera, E. F., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(5), 270–735

Chait, L. (1998). Creating a successful knowledge management system. Prism, second quarter.

Clark, T., & Rollo, C. (2001). Corporate initiatives in knowledge management. Education + Training 4(5), 206-241.

Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24 (5/6), 294−301.

Crawford, C. B. (2005). Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9 (6), 6-11

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know, harvard business school press. Cambridge, MA.

Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39 (2), 43-57.

De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14 (4), 113- 128.

Deluga, R. J., & Perry, J. T. (1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges. Group and Organization Management, 19, 67-86.

Dess, G. G., & Picken, J. C. (2000). Changing roles: leadership in the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 18-33.

Du Plessis, D. M. (2007). Knowledge management: what makes complex implementations successful? Journal of Knowledge Management, 11 (2), 91-101.

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: a field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 735–745.

Emans, B. J. M., Munduate, L., Klaver, E., & Van de Vliert, E. (2003). Constructive consequences of leaders’ forcing influence styles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(1), 36-54

Feldman, M. S. (2004). Resources in emerging structures and processes of change. Organizational Science, 15, 295-309.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press. 1967.

- 22 -

Ford, D. P., & Chan, Y. E. (2003). Knowledge sharing in a multi-cultural setting: a case study. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 11-27.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter Special Issue), 109-122.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 473-496.

Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, (13), 135-44.

Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organizations Science, 13 (3), 232-248.

Hasanali, F. (2002). Critical success factors of knowledge management. Retrieved from: www.apqc.org/free/articles (accessed 20 January 2010).

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3(4), 695-702.

Hitt, W. D. (1995). The learning organization: some reflections on organizational renewal. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 16(8), 17-25.

House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23 (3), 409-473.

Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. (1999). The ties that bind: the impact of leader–member exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 680–694.

Hunt, J. G. (1999). Transformational/Charismatic leadership’s transformation of the field: an historical essay. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 129 -145.

Jennex, M. E., & Olfman, L. (2006). A model of knowledge management success. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 2 (3), 51-68.

Jennex, M. E. (2005). What is knowledge management? International Journal of Knowledge Management, 1 (4), 1-4.

Jennex, M. E., Smolnik, S., & Croasdell, D. (2009). Towards defining knowledge management success, Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii International Conference on the System Sciences.

Jung D. I. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 185–95.

Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 535-544.

King, W.R. (2008). Questioning the conventional wisdom: culture-knowledge management. Knowledge Management, 12(3), 35-47.

- 23 -

Kreiner, K. (2002). Tacit knowledge management: the role of artifacts. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 112-23.

Lam, W., & Chua, A. (2005). Why KM projects fail: a multi-case analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9 (3), 6-17.

Lang, J. C. (2001). Managerial concerns in knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management 5(1):43-57.

Li, J. -H., Kim, Y. -G., & Kim, M. -Y. (2013). Effects of managerial drivers and climate maturity on knowledge-management performance: empirical validation. Information Resources Management Journal, 19(3), 48−60.

Lin, H. F., & Lee, G. G. (2006). Effects of socio-technical factors on organizational intention to encourage knowledge sharing. Management Decision, 44 (1), 74-88.

Lin, H. F. (2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315-335

Liss, K. (1999). Do we know how to do that? Understanding knowledge management. Harvard Management Update, February, 1-4.

Liu, X., & Batt, R. (2010). How supervisors influence performance: a multilevel study of coaching and group technology in technology-mediated services. Personnel Psychology, 63, 265-268.

Luan, J., & Serban, A. M. (2002). Technologies, products, and models supporting knowledge management. New Directions for Institutional Research, 113, 85-104

MacKinsey & Company (2013). Knowledge management success survey report. Mac Kinsey Quarterly, London.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1995). Loyal from day one: bio data organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309-333.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 – 253.

Menkhoff, T., Chay, Y. W., Loh, B., & Evers, H. (2006). Encouraging knowledge sharing in knowledge-based organizations: individual and organizational aspects of knowledge management leadership. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39). Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business. Available at: http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/2656.

Mueller, J. (2013). Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural antecedents.Journal of Knowledge Management, 16 (3), 435-447.

Mumford M. D., & Gustafson S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, (13), 705-750.

- 24 -

Naguyen, H. M., & Mohamad, S. (2011). Leadership behaviours, organizational culture and knowledge management practices: an empirical investigation. Journal of Management Development, 30 (2), 206 – 221.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14−37.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: how japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.

Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2005). The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(3), 419–436.

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5-34.

Oltra, V. (2005). Knowledge management effectiveness factors: the role of HRM. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9 (4), 70-86.

Orth, A. Smolnik, S. and Jennex, M. (2009). The relevance of integration for knowledge management success: conceptual and empirical findings, Sprague, R. (Eds.): Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hilton Waikoloa Village Resort, Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, 05.01.2009, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos CA, Washington, Brussels, Tokyo, 2009, pp. CD-ROM, online, pp. 10.

Pascarela, P. (1997). Harnessing knowledge. Management Review, October, 37-40.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship s: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.

Politis, J. D. (2002). Transformational and transactional leadership enabling (disabling) knowledge acquisition of self-managed teams: the consequences of performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23, 186-197.

Politis, J. D. (2003). The connection between trust and knowledge management: what are its implications for team performance, Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 55 - 66.

Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge management: a strategic agenda. Long Range Planning, 30 (3), 385-391.

Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–51.

Rigby, D., & Bilodeau, B. (2007). Bain’s global 2007 management tools and trends survey. Strategy & Leadership, 35 (5), 9-16.

Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? questioning the role of information and communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 12 (4), 429-443.

- 25 -

Robins, G., & Boldero, J. (2003). Relational discrepancy theory: the implications of self-discrepancy theory for dyadic relationships and for the emergence of social structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 56 – 74.

Scharmer, C. O. (2001). Self-transcending knowledge: sensing and organizing around emerging opportunities. Journal of Knowledge Management 5(2), 137-150.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.

Seeley, C., & Dietrick, B. (2000). Crafting a knowledge management strategy. Knowledge Management Review, 3 (1), 18-22.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). Motivational effects of transformational leadership: a self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.

Singh, S. J. (2008). Role of leadership in knowledge management: a study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12 (4), 3 – 15.

Skyrme, D. J. (2001). Making the business case for knowledge management: as simple as ABC?, enovation international news, Retrieved from: www.skyme.com/updates/u52_fl.htm (accessed 4 December, 2009).

Stankosky, M., & Baldanza, C. (1999). A systems approach to engineering a knowledge management system. Paper presented at the 2003 Knowledge Management: Employing Proven Tools for Results, Washington, DC.

Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital. Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY.

Sun, L., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: a relational perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 558-577.

Tierney, P. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: the relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620.

Tse, H. H. M., & Mitchell, R. J. (2010). A theoretical model of transformational leadership and knowledge creation: the role of open-mindedness norms and leader-member exchange. Journal of Management & Organization, 16(1), 83–99.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2008). Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 12–25.

Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1999). CEO charismatic leadership: levels-of-management and levels-of-analysis effects. Academy of Management Review, 24, 266 – 268

Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1), 57-91.

- 26 -

Wong, K. Y. (2005). Critical success factors for implementing knowledge management in small and medium enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105 (3), 261-279.

Yang, C. (2007). Can organizational knowledge capabilities affect knowledge sharing behavior? Journal of Information Science, 33(1), 95−109.

Yang, C., & Chen, L. -C. (2007). Can organizational knowledge capabilities affect knowledge sharing behavior? Journal of Information Science, 33(1), 95−109.

Yukl, G., & Seifert, C. F. (2002). Preliminary validation research on the extended version of the influence behaviours questionnaire. Toronto, paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology annual conference.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G., Kim, H. & Falbe, C.M. (1996). Antecedents of influence outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 309-317.

Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40 (4), 45 –58.

Zagorsek, H., Dimovski, V., & Skerlavaj, M., 2009. Transactional and transformational leadership impacts on organizational learning. Journal for East European Management Studies, 14 (2), 145-165.