The Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support in the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Knowledge Sharing Behavior of University Teachers in Universities

Abstract

In the era of knowledge economy, knowledge sharing has become a crucial social behavior that underpins the existence and development of a knowledge society. Encouraging university teachers to actively share their knowledge is essential for fostering strong teacher teams and enhancing school development. Transformational leadership plays a statistically significant role in influencing knowledge sharing behavior among university teachers. When university teachers perceive affirmation, care, and support from their institutions, they are more likely to provide feedback and contribute to the school’s success. This study investigates the mechanism by which transformational leadership influences university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior through perceived organizational support as a mediating variable. Based on a theoretical model, this research employed convenience sampling to survey 570 in-service university teachers from six undergraduate universities in Anhui, China. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS and AMOSS software. Empirical findings from China demonstrate that transformational leadership in universities positively impacts university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior significantly. Moreover, perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between transformational leadership in universities and university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior.

Plain language summary

Facilitating Knowledge Sharing: The Influence of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Support on University Teachers in Chinese Higher Education

This research emphasizes the importance of fostering transformational leadership in universities to cultivate a culture of knowledge sharing among teachers. It underscores the role of perceived organizational support as a critical link in this relationship, ultimately contributing to the overall development and success of the academic institution.

Keywords

transformational leadership in universities knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers perceived organizational support social exchange theory

Introduction

Knowledge management is the cornerstone of the knowledge economy, and knowledge sharing constitutes a vital component of effective knowledge management, which is pivotal to organizational success (Masadeh et al., 2016).The Chinese Ministry of Education (2022) emphasizes in the document “Comprehensive Promotion of High-Quality Teacher Team Building” that education is the foundation of a nation, and teachers are at the core of education. As time progresses, the importance of knowledge and talent becomes increasingly prominent, highlighting the significance of education and teachers.Universities function as knowledge-centric institutions where university faculty members’ expertise represents their most valuable resources and core competitive advantage (Wang & Zhang, 2018). Effectively managing knowledge acquisition, sharing, application, and innovation while enhancing school effectiveness stands as a crucial endeavor (Wang & Chen, 2011; Carmeli et al., 2011).

Knowledge sharing serves as a fundamental process within knowledge management encompassing the transfer of insights, experiences, and skills (Nguyen, 2021). Throughout all stages of knowledge management implementation, it is widely acknowledged that knowledge sharing assumes utmost importance (Ma, 2019), particularly within organizations reliant on intellectual capital such as universities (Bibi & Ali, 2017). As centers of knowledge creation and dissemination, knowledge sharing within universities plays a crucial role in promoting academic innovation, enhancing the quality of education, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Spender, 1996). The interaction among members within an organization serves as a primary source for exchanging valuable insights (Razzaque, 2020). However, in many cases, teachers do not actively engage in sharing their expertise due to concerns over potential loss of power or limited promotional opportunities (Tahir et al., 2016), especially when imparting personal know-how may diminish one’s competitive advantage within academic institutions thereby affecting individual career development (Xu & Li, 2022).Therefore, it is highly practical to draw the attention of the educational community toward knowledge sharing by university teachers, foster their enthusiasm for knowledge sharing, and explore potential strategies to incentivize them in this regard.

Leadership behaviors and styles significantly influence members’ attitudes and behaviors, thereby playing a crucial role in shaping and supporting knowledge sharing among members (Le & Lei, 2019). Transformational leadership has been identified as pivotal in facilitating knowledge sharing activities (Ling et al., 2009), making it imperative for school administrators to adopt transformational leadership approaches (Akar & Ustuner, 2019). Mathew (2010) argues that lack of leadership support can impede knowledge sharing in higher education institutions, hindering effective utilization of information and data by university teachers. However, research on the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing within universities remains relatively limited (Han et al., 2016; Wang & Noe, 2010).

Wang and Noe (2010) highlighted that organizational supportive factors have a positive impact on knowledge sharing. The perception of organizational support promotes individual knowledge sharing and the frequency of knowledge sharing behaviors (Tawadros, 2015; Zhou et al., 2014). Previous research examining the interaction between transformational leadership and organizational-level factors has primarily focused on the influence of transformational leadership on organizational support factors (Wang & Chen, 2011; Cho & Dansereau, 2010). According to the reciprocity principle of social exchange theory, individuals are more likely to psychologically integrate into the organization, develop a sense of belonging and identity, and engage in knowledge sharing with fellow members within the organization as a response to perceived organizational support (Jeung et al., 2017). Asgari et al. (2008) and Lin et al. (2007) found significant predictive relationships between teachers’ perceptions of school administrators’ transformational leadership behaviors and their perceptions of organizational support. Therefore, this study aims to employ social exchange theory as an analytical framework with perceived organizational support serving as a mediating variable to explore its potential mediating role in the relationship between universities’ transformational leadership and university teachers' knowledge sharing behavior. Given that transformational leadership may serve as a significant precursor to knowledge sharing among university teachers, this study aims to investigate the impact of transformational leadership within universities on the behavior of university teachers regarding knowledge sharing.

Based on these aforementioned challenges, this study primarily focuses on investigating how universities’ transformational leadership influences university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior while also indirectly affecting perceived organizational support. To test this hypothesis effectively, we address the following research questions:

RQ1: How does transformational leadership exhibited by university leaders relate to the engagement of university teachers in knowledge sharing activities?

RQ2:What is the relationship between the transformational leadership behaviors of university leaders and the perceived organizational support by university teachers?

RQ3:How does the perceived organizational support among university teachers influence their knowledge sharing behavior?

RQ4:What is the mediating role of perceived organizational support in the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors of university leaders and the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers?

Literature Review

The Association Between Transformational Leadership in Universities and Knowledge Sharing Behavior Among University Teachers

The relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing has been extensively explored in academia. Polanyi and Sen (2009) categorized knowledge into tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is difficult to articulate and is often related to personal experience, skills, and intuition, while explicit knowledge can be clearly expressed and shared through language, text, and numerical forms.The sharing of tacit knowledge primarily occurs through a process of socialization, which is achieved through shared experiences and imitation, whereas the sharing of explicit knowledge relies on the integration and systematization of knowledge (Nonaka, 1994). Despite the challenges associated with the personalized nature of tacit knowledge, transformational leadership enhances the motivation and job satisfaction of subordinates to share knowledge by fostering high-quality exchange relationships (Al-Alawi et al., 2007). This leadership style not only promotes knowledge sharing but also improves overall organizational performance and innovation by inspiring followers to engage in goal-oriented actions (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

In the field of higher education, the role of transformational leadership is particularly significant. Green (2013) notes that this leadership approach cultivates an environment conducive to learning activities, which is essential for the performance and achievements of educational institutions. Research by Al-Hussein and Elbeltagi (2014) further confirms that transformational leadership significantly influences the knowledge-sharing behaviors of university teachers in developing countries. This indicates that leaders are not only managers of organizations but also active participants in fostering knowledge-sharing behaviors among teachers. Based on this, the study proposes the following research question and hypothesis:

RQ1: How is the transformational leadership exhibited by university leaders associated with the engagement of university teachers in knowledge sharing activities?

H1: We hypothesize that there is a positive correlation between the transformational leadership exhibited by university leaders and the knowledge sharing behaviors of university teachers.

The Relationship Between Perceived Organizational Support and University Teachers’ Knowledge Sharing Behavior

Perceived organizational support (POS) is integral to the dynamics of knowledge sharing within organizations. It operates as a motivational force that enhances the propensity of individuals to engage in knowledge-sharing activities. POS is predicated on the social exchange theory, which posits a reciprocal relationship between employees and their organizations (Blau, 1964). When employees perceive that their contributions are valued and supported by the organization, they are more inclined to reciprocate through behaviors that benefit the organization, such as sharing knowledge (Swift & Virick, 2013; Wang & Noe, 2010).

In the context of higher education, POS is particularly influential. Studies have shown that when university teachers perceive a supportive environment, they are more likely to participate in knowledge-sharing initiatives (Raab et al., 2014). This perception is shaped by the quality of relationships between supervisors and subordinates, where leaders who establish effective exchange relationships can significantly increase the willingness of teachers to share knowledge, enhancing job satisfaction and, by extension, the performance of the educational institution (Al-Alawi et al., 2007).

The willingness to share knowledge is further influenced by the resources and support provided by the organization. POS has been identified as a key determinant of effective knowledge-sharing practices, as it directly impacts the individual’s perception of the organization’s commitment to their professional development (Shateri & Hayat, 2020). When teachers believe that the organization is invested in their growth and well-being, they are more likely to engage in collaborative efforts that enhance the collective knowledge base of the institution (Lin & Lee, 2004; Lin, 2007).

Empirical evidence suggests that POS is not just a precursor to knowledge sharing but also a reinforcing factor. Teachers who perceive higher levels of organizational support are more likely to exhibit increased knowledge-sharing behaviors, indicating a positive feedback loop where organizational support and knowledge sharing are mutually reinforcing (Zhou et al., 2014). This relationship underscores the importance of cultivating a supportive organizational culture that encourages and facilitates knowledge sharing as a core organizational practice. Thus, the study proposes the following research questions and hypotheses:

RQ2: How does the perceived organizational support among university teachers influence their knowledge sharing behavior?

H2: We hypothesize that the perceived organizational support by university teachers positively influences their knowledge sharing behavior.

The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Perceived Organizational Support in Universities

Many studies have investigated the relationship between transformational leadership and perceived organizational support (Mittal & Dhar, 2015; Herrmann & Felfe, 2014). Organizational support is the belief of organizational members that the organization treats them fairly, helps when they encounter difficulties, focuses on welfare, and guarantees the working conditions of organizational members (Vu & Yazdani, 2021). A supportive leadership climate established among followers should extend throughout the organization, leading to higher perceived organizational support.

Farooqi et al. (2019) believe that perceived organizational support largely depends on subordinates’ feelings about the good or unfavorable treatment provided by the organization. Mathew (2010) argued that lack of leadership support may hinder knowledge sharing in higher education, making it difficult for teachers to use knowledge effectively and share data and information. School administrators with high levels of transformational leadership behaviors can positively influence teachers’ perceived organizational support, and improvements in teachers’ perceived organizational support can also improve the perceived quality of work life (Akar & Ustuner, 2019).

Teachers who feel psychologically well treated by their leaders will be willing to show good organizational behavior in exchange. This reward or exchange psychology will affect their attitude toward the organization and may be reflected in their work attitude or work behavior (Orpen, 2001) . Transformational leadership has a positive impact on perceived organizational support (Stinglhamber et al., 2015). Teachers’ perceptions of school administrators’ transformational leadership behaviors significantly predicted teachers’ perceptions of organizational support (Asgari et al., 2008; Lin et al., 2007). It can be seen that school administrators with high levels of transformational leadership behaviors can positively affect teachers’ perceived organizational support, and improvements in teachers’ perceived organizational support can also improve the perceived quality of work life (Akar & Ustuner, 2019). Based on this result, the study proposes the following research questions and hypotheses:

RQ3: What is the relationship between the transformational leadership behaviors of university leaders and the perceived organizational support by university teachers?

H3: We hypothesize that the transformational leadership behaviors of university leaders positively affect the perceived organizational support by university teachers.

The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership, Perceived Organizational Support and Knowledge Sharing Behavior of University Teachers in Universities

According to social exchange theory, individuals are more likely to engage in knowledge sharing behaviors when they perceive positive organizational support, such as fair treatment and leadership that fosters a sense of value and security (Jeung et al., 2017; Wu & Lee, 2017). Transformational leadership, known for its effectiveness in facilitating knowledge sharing, influences this process through the mediating role of perceived organizational support (DÜGER, 2021). This support is pivotal, as it enhances the willingness of teachers to share knowledge, thereby impacting the overall effectiveness of knowledge sharing within academic institutions (Shateri & Hayat, 2020).

When exploring the link between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing behavior, we specifically focus on the role of “perceived organizational support” as a mediating variable. Although other factors such as interpersonal relationships, communication efficiency, organizational identification, and personality traits (Cui & Wang, 2020; Li et al., 2015; Liu, 2021; Esmaeelinezhad & Afrazeh, 2018) are also considered potential mediators or moderators, a mediator would clarify the process through which leadership influences sharing behaviors, while a moderator would alter the strength or direction of this relationship under different conditions (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Edwards, 2002). However, “perceived organizational support” stands out for its central role in promoting knowledge sharing (Shateri & Hayat, 2020). According to social exchange theory, individuals tend to reciprocate to organizations that they perceive as supportive (Blau, 1964), providing a solid theoretical foundation for this study.

In higher education, transformational leaders play a critical role in creating an environment where teachers feel respected, trusted, and motivated, which is essential for achieving institutional goals (Yang, 2014). Teachers who perceive support from their schools exhibit higher job satisfaction and a sense of self-actualization (Cullen et al., 2014). This support can manifest in various forms, such as valuing extra work, providing opportunities, and recognizing competence, all of which encourage diverse participation in academic activities.

Perceived organizational support not only strengthens transformational leadership but also stimulates collaborative and dynamic knowledge creation practices among teachers (Dutrénit, 2000; Yoon et al., 2009). A supportive school culture is essential for fostering collaborative and intellectual practices among university faculty, promoting an atmosphere conducive to the free sharing, synthesis, and expansion of knowledge (Lee, 2007).

The mediating role of perceived organizational support in the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing is significant. When teachers recognize the organization’s support and care, they are motivated to reciprocate by contributing to the organization’s goals (Ling et al., 2006; Zou & Yin, 2017). This support positively influences both the intention to share knowledge and the frequency of such sharing behaviors (Jeung et al., 2017; King & Marks, 2008), highlighting its importance in the academic context (Mahmoud, 2008).Therefore, the study proposes the following research question and hypothesis:

RQ4: What is the mediating role of perceived organizational support in the relationship between the transformational leadership of university leaders and the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers?

H4: We hypothesize that perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between the transformational leadership behaviors of university leaders and the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers.

Method

Research Conceptual Model

According to the motivation and purpose of this study, we want to understand the impact of factors such as transformational leadership and perceived organizational support in universities on the development of knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers, and explore how transformational leadership in universities affects perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers. In addition to In addition to understanding the relationship and influence between various factors, we also want to know whether the mediating effect of perceived organizational support affects the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers. Based on this, the research structure (Figure 1) was established. The independent variable of this study is transformational leadership in universities, the dependent variable is knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers, and the mediating variable is perceived organizational support.

Figure 1.

Proposed research model.

Research Design

This study employed a questionnaire survey method to collect data on transformational leadership, perceived organizational support, and knowledge sharing behavior among university teachers. The questionnaire was designed based on established scales, each measuring different dimensions of the constructs. Here, we detail the structure of the research design, including the number of items for each variable and the Cronbach's alpha coefficients to assess reliability (Table 1).

Table 1.

Research Design Structure.

Variable	Dimensions	Number of Items	Cronbach's Alpha
Transformational leadership	Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Individualized Consideration	19	.92
Perceived organizational support	Job Support, Value Identification, Interest Concern	24	.94
Knowledge sharing behavior	Knowledge Donation, Knowledge Collection	8	.89

Procedure and Sample

According to the Ethical Code of Thailand's Ministry of Science and Technology, 2015 document, during the research process, researchers must take measures to protect participants’ personal and sensitive information, implement informed consent procedures for all participants, clarify privacy and confidentiality terms, and participant information will be kept confidential. are anonymous and the collected questionnaires are kept confidential. The IRB certificate number is: DPUHREC074/65NA;

This study was conducted among 6 in-service university teachers in Anhui, China. Convenience sampling method was used, which helped in easier collection of data. In order to ensure that the scale has good adaptability in this study, a pre-test was launched to test the reliability and validity of each scale before the formal survey. A total of 200 pre-test questionnaires were distributed, and 190 valid questionnaires were recovered. A total of 570 formal questionnaires were distributed, and 529 valid questionnaires were recovered, of which 46.1% were male (n = 244) and 53.9% female (n = 285) participated in the study. In terms of age, 15.0% (n=79) were under 30 years old, 44.4% (n = 235) were 31-40 years old, 31.0% (n = 164) were 41 to 50 years old, and 9.60% (n = 51) were over 50 years old. In terms of academic qualifications, 14.5% (n = 77) had a bachelor’s degree, 71.1% (n = 376) had a master’s degree, and 14.4% (n = 76) had a doctorate (Table 2).

Table 2.

Teacher Demographic Variables (Number of Samples: 529).

Variables	Project	Number of people	Percentage
Age	Under 30 years old	79	14.934
	31–40 years old	235	44.423
	41–50 years old	164	31.002
	Over 50 years old	51	9.641
Teaching years	Less than 5 years	110	20.794
	6–10 years	119	22.495
	11–15 years	110	20.794
	16–20 years	87	16.446
	21–25 years	53	10.019
	26 years and above	50	9.452
Job title	Teaching assistant	79	14.934
	lecturer	221	41.777
	Associate Professor	199	37.618
	professor	30	5.671

Measures

Independent Variable

The school transformational leadership scale of Zainal and Matore (2021) was adopted, which was divided into four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and personalized care, with 20 items in four dimensions. Likert 5-point scoring method was adopted: 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) to measure the items in the school transformational leadership scale. The higher the score, the more obvious the transformational leadership style. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of the school transformational Leadership scale ranged from .80 to .83. The definition of university transformational leadership in this study is: University transformational leadership is a process of innovation and change. The mutual integration of individuals and the establishment of certain connections to improve the enthusiasm and moral awareness of faculty and leaders.

Mediator Variable

The scale of perceived organizational support developed by Tang and Hu (2017) is adopted, which is divided into three dimensions: job support, value identification, and interest concern, and contains 25 items. The Likert 5-point scale is adopted, from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The higher the score, the stronger the perceived organizational support. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient supported by the perceived organization was .96, and the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of the three dimensions were .91, .93, and .91, respectively. Perceived organizational support in this study is defined as: when university teachers believe that leaders value their own contributions and care about their own welfare, based on the principle of reciprocity, university teachers will work harder to help the school achieve its educational goals.

Dependent Variable

The knowledge sharing behavior scale of Al-Husseini and Elbeltagi (2018) is used, which is divided into two dimensions: knowledge donation and knowledge collection. Knowledge donation includes 4 items, and the knowledge collection dimension includes four items. The measurement method is a 5-point Likert scale: 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The higher the score, the higher the degree of knowledge sharing behavior. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of the two dimensions are: .83 and .90 respectively. This study defines knowledge sharing behavior as: the process in which university teachers realize professional knowledge, skills, work experience and values in various forms, stimulate new thinking, learn new knowledge and experience, and achieve knowledge accumulation and value-added.

Analytical Strategy

SPSS and AMOS were used for statistical analysis of data. First, descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic background variables and the status of each variable. The validity test of the questionnaire used Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to verify the fit between the three model structures and construct validity as well as the actual collected data. Secondly, the common method bias was tested post hoc using Harman’s single factor test to check whether there are any generalization problems in the completed questionnaire data. Correlation analysis mainly uses Pearson correlation analysis to analyze and test whether there is a correlation between two variables. Finally, the overall model path analysis uses structural equation modeling (SEM) through AMOS to calculate the structural relationship between each variable. Through this approach, we can conduct a detailed analysis of how transformational leadership promotes knowledge sharing behavior by enhancing teachers’ perception of organizational support. Path analysis is used to reveal the relationship between multiple variables and perform hypothesis testing. Taking into account the structural validity of the scale, the standard for fitting index is: χ2/df < 5; SRMR ≤ 0.08; RMSEA ≤ 0.10; AGFI < 0.80; NFI ≥ 0.80; IFI ≥ 0.90; precision is the degree of model fitness Good (Schmacker & Lomax, 2004).

The Bootstrapping Method can improve the accuracy of test estimates of mediation effects (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). It is a repeated sampling procedure, and the average of the mediation effect and the 95% confidence interval can be obtained. Assuming that the 95% confidence interval of the mediation effect does not include 0, it can be shown that the mediation effect reaches the statistically significant level of p < .05 (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). In view of the advantages of Bootstrapping in testing mediation effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), the Bootstrapping Method (repeated sampling 2,000 times) was used to calculate the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval of each mediation effect to further verify perceived organizational support. the mediating effect.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on three variables: transformational leadership in universities, knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers and perceived organizational support. The analysis results show that the scales of transformational leadership in universities, knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers and perceived organizational support have strong structural validity. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient value exceeds the minimum value α ≥ .7 (Wu, 2010). It shows that the three scales have good internal consistency and stability (Table 3).

Table 3.

Fit Statistics of the Three Scales.

Scales	α	χ²/df	SRMR	RMSEA	IFI	AGFI	CFI
Transformational leadership	.92	2.53	0.03	0.05	0.96	0.91	0.96
Perceived organizational support	.94	2.27	0.03	0.04	0.95	0.90	0.95
Teacher knowledge sharing behavior	.89	2.82	0.02	0.05	0.98	0.95	0.98

Correlation Analysis

Table 4 gives the mean, standard deviation and correlation analysis of the total dimensions of the three scales. Transformational leadership in universities (M = 3.44, SD = 0.59), perceived organizational support (M = 3.34, SD = 0.65), and knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers (M = 3.38, SD = 0.72) indicate that university teachers in Anhui Province, China, perceive change The two variables of leadership and knowledge sharing behavior have the highest averages, and perceived organizational support is the lowest. It shows that the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers in Anhui Province, China is at a medium level. According to Pearson correlation analysis, it was found that transformational leadership in universities has a statistically significant positive correlation with perceived organizational support (0.52***) and university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior (0.45***). There is a statistically significant positive correlation between perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers (0.51***).

Table 4.

Correlation Analysis Table Between Variables (n = 529).

Scales	M	SD	TL	POS	TSB
Transformational leadership	3.44	0.59	1
Perceived organizational support	3.34	0.65	0.52***	1
Teacher knowledge sharing behavior	3.38	0.72	0.45***	.051***	1

TL: Transformational Leadership; POS: perceived organizational support; TSB: Teacher Knowledge Sharing Behavior.

***

p< 0.001.

Differential Validity Analysis

The AVE and correlation coefficient square methods were used to judge the discriminant validity of variables. The analysis results show that the square root of AVE of each facet is greater than the number of correlation coefficients of each facet, and accounts for more than 75%, which meets the standard for evaluating discriminant validity (Hair et al., 1998). For any two facets, the The discriminant validity between them is good. The square root of AVE of each facet can meet the judgment criteria, indicating that the scale has good discriminant validity (Capron, 1999; Table 5).

Table 5.

Differential Validity Test Table.

Dimensionality	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Idealized influence	0.79^a
Inspirational motivation	0.50	0.76^a
Intellectual stimulation	0.48	0.44	0.76^a
Individualized consideration	0.51	0.51	0.50	0.77^a
Job support	0.25	0.27	0.25	0.25	0.74^a
Interest concern	0.38	0.37	0.35	0.33	0.55	0.72^a
Value identification	0.36	0.34	0.34	0.40	0.56	0.54	0.75^a
Knowledge donation	0.33	0.34	0.33	0.22	0.29	0.41	0.37	0.78^a
Knowledge collection	0.37	0.36	0.38	0.24	0.29	0.45	0.37	0.61	0.80^a

The value of the diagonal is the square root of the mean variation withdrawal (AVE) of the dimensions, which should be greater than the value of the non-diagonal. The correlation coefficients of each facet are three significant stars.

Post hoc Detection of Common Method Bias

We conducted both multi-factor and single-factor Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA). The results indicate that the multi-factor model demonstrated a good fit, with a chi-square value (χ2 = 1841.70) significantly lower than that of the single-factor model. Conversely, the single-factor model exhibited poor fit, with a significantly higher chi-square value (χ2 = 8994.21). Based on these findings, it is reasonable to infer that the measurement of all variables can be assessed using a distinct framework. Consequently, it can be concluded that the issue of Common Method Variance (CMV) in this study is not severe(Table 6).

Table 6.

Common Method Deviation Analysis Table.

Model	χ²	df	△χ²	△df	p
Single factor model	8994.21	1224	7152.50	36	<.001
Multifactor model	1841.70	1188

Note. The single-factor model is considered only one factor. A multi-factor model is a combination of various factors.

Structural Equal Model Analysis

The path analysis of the potential variables of the proposed research hypothesis was carried out by SEM. Transformational leadership in universities has a statistically significant positive impact on perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers, with path coefficients of 0.63(p < .05) and 0.29(p < .05), respectively. Moreover, perceived organizational support also had a positive and statistically significant effect on knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers, with a path coefficient of 0.45 (p < .05). The results showed that the overall model had a good fit (χ2/df = 2.84, RMSEA = 0.59, IFI = 0.97, AGFl = 0.95, CF1 = 0.97). To sum up, a brief answer to RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3 is that transformational leadership in universities has a statistically significant positive impact on knowledge sharing behaviors of university teachers,The path coefficient is 0.29 (p < .05). Perceived organizational support has a statistically significant positive effect on knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers,The path coefficient is 0.45 (p < .05). Transformational leadership has a statistically significant positive impact on perceived organizational support,The path coefficient is 0.63 (p < .05). The analysis results showed that the measurement model was verified (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

SEM path analysis results of the structural relationship between research variables.

Calculated using the non-parametric percentile Bootstrap method, the direct effects of transformational leadership in universities on the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers are 0.63 (p < .001), 0.29 (p < .001), and 0.45 (p < .001), all reaching statistically significant levels. The level of significance shows that there is a statistically significant direct effect between the three. The confidence intervals (0.43, 0.70; 0.55, 0.59; 0.31, 0.15) do not include 0 (p < .05), indicating that transformational leadership in universities can improve university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior through perceived organizational support. Among the indirect effects, the indirect effect of transformational leadership in universities on the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers is 0.28, reaching the significance level. The confidence intervals (0.20, 0.39) do not include 0 (p < .05), indicating an indirect effect. In the total effect, the total effect of transformational leadership in universities on the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers is 0.58, and reaches the significance level. The confidence intervals (0.49, 0.66) do not include 0 (p < .05), which has a partial mediation effect (Table 7).

Table 7.

Mediation Effect Bootstrap Test Analysis Table.

Path	Effect value	Standard error	p value	95% Confidence interval (upper limit) (lower limit)
Direct effect
Transformational leadership in universities → Perceived organizational support	0.63	0.03	.001	(0.55, 0.70)
Transformational leadership in universities → Teacher knowledge sharing behavior	0.29	0.07	.001	(0.15, 0.43)
Perceived organizational support → Teacher knowledge sharing behavior	0.45	0.07	.001	(0.31, 0.59)
Indirect effect
Transformational leadership in universities → Teacher knowledge sharing behavior	0.28	0.04	.001	(0.20, 0.39)
Total effect
Transformational leadership in universities → Teacher knowledge sharing behavior	0.58	0.04	.001	(0.49, 0.66)

Note. The percentile Bootstrap confidence interval sample value is 2000.

Through the above analysis, it can be seen that there are significant total effects, direct effects and mediating effects in pairs among the three. The confidence intervals of the total effect, direct effect and mediation effect of the bias-corrected non-parametric percentile do not include 0, indicating that the impact of transformational leadership in universities on university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior has a statistically significant total effect and direct effect, and perception The mediating effect of organizational support is statistically significant, indicating that transformational leadership in universities can promote university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior through perceived organizational support. In summary, a concise answer to RQ4 is that perceived organizational support plays a mediating role in the relationship between transformational leadership in universities and university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior.

Discussion

This study measured transformational leadership, perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers. The results showed that the score of knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers (M = 3.38) showed that university teachers have a relatively positive attitude and behavior toward knowledge sharing. University administrators should recognize the importance of knowledge sharing among university teachers and adopt corresponding policies and measures to promote knowledge sharing and cooperation among university teachers, improve teaching quality and academic level, and help promote subject development and school reform (Pratama et al., 2021). The score of transformational leadership in colleges and universities (M = 3.44) shows that school leaders play an active role in promoting school reform and development. Transformational leaders in colleges and universities are characterized by innovation, risk-taking and openness, and can actively promote organizational innovation and change. However, for university leadership teams to achieve long-term development of the school, they must have a clear vision and strategy, and also need to have innovative spirit and leadership to lead the school to learn from past successful experiences and continue to progress and improve. Perceived organizational support score (M = 3.34). In universities, the improvement of perceived organizational support can promote the work enthusiasm and initiative of university teachers, and enhance their work motivation and satisfaction. By providing better working conditions, training opportunities and career development support, the school strengthens its attention and support for university teachers, creates a positive working atmosphere, and improves the job satisfaction and productivity of university teachers.

SEM path analysis results show that transformational leadership in universities has a statistically significant positive impact on university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior, with a path coefficient of 0.296 (p < .001). The research hypothesis RQ1 is established. This result is consistent with Al-Husseini and Elbeltagi (2018) had the same results. In practice, transformational leadership in universities embodies attitudes and behaviors that support, motivate, and encourage university teachers’ knowledge sharing behaviors, which is conducive to improving university teachers’ knowledge sharing intentions and behaviors (Fullwood et al., 2013). Transformational leaders in universities can inspire and encourage university teachers to share knowledge through their personal behaviors and speeches, strengthen cooperation and exchanges among university teachers, and improve the innovation and learning capabilities of the organization (Zuraik & Kelly, 2018).

Perceived organizational support has a statistically significant positive impact on university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior, with a path coefficient of 0.454 (p < .001). The research hypothesis RQ2 is established. This research result is the same as that of Bartol et al. (2009). Support and resources provided by organizations can facilitate knowledge sharing behaviors among university faculty. When university teachers feel supported by the organization, their sense of belonging and loyalty to the organization will be enhanced, and they will be more willing to share their knowledge and experience with the organization. In modern higher education, university teachers are the creators and disseminators of knowledge, while organizations are the managers and carriers of knowledge. A better working environment is what organizational support can provide university teachers and make them more willing to share their knowledge.The research findings support the hypothesis that “perceived organizational support” serves as a mediating variable between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing behavior. This discovery emphasizes the importance of leaders in shaping teachers’ perceptions and promoting knowledge sharing in the field of higher education. Furthermore, the results of this study suggest the possibility of enhancing teachers’ willingness to share knowledge by strengthening the sense of organizational support, which is significant for improving the overall effectiveness and innovation capacity of educational institutions.

Transformational leadership in universities has a statistically significant positive impact on perceived organizational support, with a path coefficient result of 0.637 (p < .001). The research hypothesis RQ3 is established, which is the same as the research results of Suifan et al. (2018). In the process of promoting organizational change, transformational leaders in universities can pay attention to the needs and opinions of university teachers, actively adopt the suggestions of university teachers, and provide necessary support and resources, thereby enhancing the perceived organizational support of university teachers. In addition, transformational leadership in universities can also create a positive organizational culture (Dwi & Hermanto, 2020), encourage the innovation and development of university teachers, and further enhance the perceived organizational support of university teachers.

Perceived organizational support has a mediating effect between transformational leadership in universities and knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers, with a path coefficient of 0.289 (p < .001). The mediation effect Bootstrap test analysis results show that the impact of transformational leadership in universities on the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers shows significant total effects and direct effects. At the same time, the sense of organizational support plays a significant mediating role, indicating that transformational leadership in universities can By increasing the sense of organizational support to promote university teachers' knowledge sharing behavior, research hypothesis RQ4 is established. The results of this study also indirectly support the results of past empirical research. Transformational leadership has a positive impact on perceived organizational support (Akar & Ustuner, 2019), and perceived organizational support significantly positively affects knowledge sharing (Jeung et al., 2017). The reason is that, according to social exchange theory, when individuals feel positive benefits from the organization, such as perceived organizational support or positive leadership, they are more inclined to engage in knowledge sharing behaviors (Wu & Lee, 2017 ). Transformational leadership is an effective form of leadership in successful knowledge sharing processes (Xiao et al., 2017). Transformational leaders can create conditions through high-level leadership, stimulate the morale of university teachers, and make university teachers feel respected, trusted, and motivated. When schools value the extra work and good performance of university teachers and give them opportunities to feel qualified through the work they are given, this is a form of school support (Sarıkaya & Kara, 2020). Therefore, transformational leadership in universities may directly affect the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers, and perceived organizational support can enhance transformational leadership. When college faculty recognize the existence of organizational support, they are more likely to engage in diverse activities. Perceived organizational support encourages university faculty to engage in more collaborative and dynamic knowledge creation practices (Yoon et al., 2009).

Limitations and Future Directions

This study only involves the perceptions of teachers at Anhui University in China and cannot represent the views of university teachers in other regions. Due to regional differences, university teachers in different regions may face different educational backgrounds, cultural and institutional environments, and therefore may have different perceptions of transformational leadership. We can further discuss how to improve the differences of background variables and effectively cultivate and enhance the characteristics of transformational leadership, so as to further promote the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers.

Based on this study, we found that perceived organizational support plays a mediating role, and it is recommended that future research can further reveal other mediating or moderating factors to understand how these factors interact with each other to deepen the understanding of the impact on the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers. It can help us better understand the factors such as the intrinsic motivation, external environment and social interaction of university teachers’ knowledge sharing behavior, and provide more effective theoretical and practical guidance for improving the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers, thereby better promoting and optimizing the knowledge sharing behavior of university teachers.

Conclusion

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of transformational leadership on the knowledge sharing behaviors within universities, with a particular focus on the Chinese higher education context. It underscores the importance of knowledge sharing as a core component of knowledge management, which is not only a research focus but also a challenge in academic and organizational development.

Theoretical Significance

Knowledge Sharing as a Core Process: Knowledge sharing is highlighted as a key process within knowledge management, playing a significant role in the advancement of academic communities (Sohail & Daud, 2009). This study extends the theoretical framework by examining the role of transformational leadership in facilitating the exchange of both tacit and explicit knowledge among university teachers, drawing on social exchange theory and knowledge management principles.

Broadening Theoretical Insights: By focusing on Chinese university teachers, this research contributes to the theoretical discourse on knowledge sharing behavior. It expands the understanding of antecedent variables that influence such behavior and enriches the theoretical discussion by emphasizing the mediating role of perceived organizational support (Long & Sun, 2021).

Social Exchange Theory in Practice: The study applies social exchange theory to understand the dynamics of knowledge sharing, viewing it as a form of social communication based on the exchange of information and knowledge (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). This perspective aids in the development of knowledge management strategies and provides theoretical support for promoting knowledge sharing among university teachers.

Practical Significance

Enhancing Academic Development: The findings suggest that transformational leadership can significantly enhance the academic and professional development of university teachers by fostering a culture conducive to knowledge sharing (Li et al., 2019).

Strategic Guidance for Administrators: The study offers practical guidance for university administrators to develop targeted strategies that encourage knowledge sharing among faculty, thereby enhancing the institution’s academic and research capabilities (Charband & Navimipour, 2018).

Cultural Relevance: The study’s focus on Anhui University provides insights into the unique educational and cultural context of China, suggesting that understanding local nuances is essential for effectively promoting knowledge sharing (Xu & Li, 2022).

Limitations and Future Research

While this study provides valuable insights, it acknowledges the limitations in representing the broader perspectives of university teachers across different regions in China. Future research should aim to explore the impact of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing across various regional contexts within China, considering the diverse educational practices and cultural influences.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Anhui Province Provincial Quality Engineering Project: Innovative Project for Cultivating Outstanding Engineers in Public Art, grant number 2022zybj099.

ORCID iD

Libin Chen

Data Availability Statement

Due to privacy concerns and ethical restrictions, the data collected in this study cannot be made publicly available. We respect the privacy rights of individuals involved and have taken measures to ensure that the data are protected. Access to the data may be considered on a case-by-case basis, under strict confidentiality agreements, and with the approval of the relevant institutional review board or ethics committee.

References

Akar

Ustuner

(2019). The relationships between perceptions of teachers’ transformational leadership, organizational justice, organizational support and quality of work life. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 5(1), 309–322. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1198103

Al-Alawi

A. L.

Al-Marzooqi

N. Y.

Mohammed

Y. F.

(2007). Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710738898

Al-Husseini

Elbeltagi

(2014). Transformational leadership and Innovation: A comparison study between iraq’s public and private higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.927848

Al-Husseini

Elbeltagi

(2018). Evaluating the effect of transformational leadership on knowledge sharing using structural equation modelling: the case of Iraqi higher education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(4), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1142119

Asgari

Silong

Ahmad

Abu-Sama

(2008). The relationship between transformational leadership behaviors, leadermember exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors. European Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 140–151. http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/17305/

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bartol

K. M.

Liu

Zeng

(2009). Social exchange and knowledge sharing among knowledge workers: The moderating role of perceived job security. Management and Organization Review, 5(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00146.x

Bass

B. M.

Riggio

R. E.

(2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

Bibi

Ali

(2017). Knowledge sharing behavior of academ-ics in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 9(4), 550–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-11-2016-0077

10.

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life (1st ed.). Wiley.

11.

Blouch

Yasmeen

Khan

M. M.

Shakeel

(2021). Unleashing knowledge sharing in a d eveloping country: A case of healthcare industry. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication, 70(1/2), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-12-2019-0159

12.

Capron

(1999). The long-term performance of horizontal acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 20(11), 987–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199911)20:11<987::AID-SMJ61>3.0.CO;2-B

13.

Carmeli

Atwater

Levi

(2011). How leadership en-hances employees’ knowledge sharing: The interveningroles of relational and organizational identification. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 3(36), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9154-y

14.

Charband

Navimipour

N. J.

(2018). Knowledge sharing mechanisms in the education: A systematic review of the state of the art literature and recommendations for future research. Kybernetes, 47(7), 1456–1490. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-06-2017-0227

15.

Cho

Dansereau.

. (2010). Are transformational leaders fair?A multi-level study of transformational leadership, justice perceptions, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.006

16.

Connelly

C. E.

Kelloway

E. K.

(2003). Predictors of employees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 24(5), 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730310485815

17.

Cui

Wang

F. Y.

(2020). A study on factors influencing teacher knowledge sharing: Based on structural equation modeling. Journal of Education Sciences 16(04), 64–71. http://www.cqvip.com/qk/81258a/202004/7102672310.html

18.

Cullen

K. L.

Edwards

B. D.

Casper

Gue

K. R.

(2014). Employees’ adaptability and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: Implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9312-y

19.

DÜGER

Y. S.

(2021). The effect of transformational leadership and leader-member exchange on knowledge sharing process: A practice from turkey. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 6(3), 232–249. https://doi.org/10.23834/isrjournal.978883

20.

Dutre′nit

(2000). Learning and knowledge management in the firm:From knowledge accumulation to strategic capabilities. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

21.

Dwi

D. A.

Hermanto

A. T.

(2020). The effect of organizational culture and transformational leadership on knowledge sharing: A study in Bumigora University of West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. Russian Journal of Agricultural & Socio-Economic Sciences, 103(7), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2020-07.03

22.

Edwards

J. R.

(2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression applications for interaction detection and curve estimation. In Drasgow

Schmitt

(Eds.), Measuring and analyzing behavior in organizations: Advanced topics in measurement and data analysis (pp. 131–160). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Esmaeelinezhad

Afrazeh

(2018). Linking personality traits and individuals’ knowledge management behavior. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(3), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2018-0019

24.

Farooqi

M. T. K.

Ahmed

Ashiq

(2019). Relationship of perceived organizational support with secondary school teachers’performance. Bulletin of Education and Research, 41(3), 141–152. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1244691

25.

Fullwood

Rowley

Delbridge

(2013). Knowledge sharing amongst academics in UK universities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271311300831

26.

Goh

Sandhu

(2013). Knowledge aharing among Malaysian academics: influence of affective commitment and trust. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(1), 38–48. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejkm/article/view/975

27.

Green

H. L.

(2013). Transformational leadership in education: Strengths-bases approach to change for administrators, teachers, and guidance counselors. global educational advance, Incorporated.

28.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall International.

29.

Han

S. H.

Seo

Yoon

S. W.

Yoon

D. Y.

(2016). Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing: Mediating roles of employee’s empowerment, commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Workplace Learning, 28(3), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-09-2015-0066

30.

Herrmann

Felfe

(2014). Effects of leadership style, creativity technique and personal initiative on employee creativity. British Journal of Management, 25(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00849.x

31.

Hussien

Khedr

(2021). The effect of national culture on knowledge sharing: Empirical study on university students in UK. Arab Journal of Administration, 41(1), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.21608/aja.2020.68687

32.

Jeung

C. W.

Yoon

H. J.

Choi

(2017). Exploring the affective mechanism linking perceived organizational support and knowledge sharing intention: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(4), 946–960. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2016-0530

33.

King

W. R.

Marks

P. V

Jr . (2008). Motivating knowledge sharing through a knowledge management system. Omega, 36(1), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2005.10.006

34.

P. B.

Lei

(2019). Determinants of innovation capability: The roles of transformational leadership, knowledge sharing and perceived organizational support. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(3), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2018-0568

35.

Lee

(2007). What makes teachers learn together within the workplace?: Listening to korean teachers of english in secondary schools. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 4(1), 59–78. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/what-makes-teachers-learn-together-within/docview/1013970435/se-2

36.

Xie

Wang

Sindakis

(2019). The partner selection modes for knowledge-based innovation networks: A multiagent simulation. IEEE Access, 7, 140969–140979. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2944394

37.

Y. J.

Ren

Hao

S. Y.

(2015). The mechanism of transformational leadership on organizational knowledge sharing: The mediating roles of organizational trust and communication. Library Research, 14, 79–84. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/97915X/201514/665489516.html

38.

Lin

H. F.

(2007). Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. International Journal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720710755272

39.

Lin

H. F.

Lee

G. G.

(2004). Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behavior. Management Decision, 42(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740410510181

40.

Lin

L. C.

Jiang

D. Y.

Cheng

B. S.

(2007). Limitations and opportunities of transformational leadership:the moderating effect of perceived organizational support. In 21st ANZAM Conference. https://www.anzam.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf-manager/1916_JIANGDING-YU_365.PDF

41.

Ling

T. N.

San

L. Y.

Hock

N. T.

(2009). Trust: Facilitator of knowledge- sharing culture. Communications of the IBIM A, 7(15), 137–142. https://ibimapublishing.com/articles/CIBIMA/2009/396037/396037.pdf

42.

Ling

W. Q.

Yang

H. J.

Fang

L. L.

(2006). Employees’ perceptions of organizational support. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(2), 281-287. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/90117X/200602/21532014.html

43.

Liu

(2021). Mechanisms and implementation strategies of teachers’ knowledge sharing. Contemporary Educational Science, 8, 28–34. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-2221.2021.08.005

44.

Long

F. Y.

Sun

W. Y.

(2021). Research on the guarantee mechanism of knowledge sharing among university teacher teams—Taking the international trade professional team of Nanjing University as an example. Universities: Research and Management, 2, 120–121.

45.

R. X.

(2019). A review of factors affecting knowledge sharing among knowledge workers. Chinese Collective Economy, 28, 77–78. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/81762X/201928/7100082989.html

46.

Mahmoud

A. H.

(2008). A study of nurses’ job satisfaction: the relationship to organizational commitment, perceived organizational support, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and level of education. European Journal of Scientific Research, 22(2), 286–295. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279554064_Study_of_nurses%27_job_satisfaction_The_relationship_to_organizational_commitment_perceived_organizational_support_transactional_leadership_transformational_leadership_and_level_of_education

47.

Masadeh

Obeidat

B.Y.

Tarhini

(2016). A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational eldership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Management Development, 35(5), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2015-0134

48.

Mathew

(2010). Service delivery through knowledge management in higher education. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 11(3), 1–14. http://www.tlainc.com/articl234.htm

49.

Mittal

Dhar

R. L.

(2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity: mediating role of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing. Management Decision, 53(5), 894–910. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2014-0464

50.

Nguyen

T. M.

(2021). A review of two psychological models in knowledge sharing: Current trends and future agenda. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 51(4), 533–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/vjikms-12-2019-0206

51.

Nonaka

(1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14

52.

Nonaka

Takeuchi

(1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

53.

Orpen

(2001). The effects of exchange ideology on the relationship between perceived organizational support and job performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(3), 407–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9711749

54.

Polanyi

Sen

(2009). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press.

55.

Pratama

Syamsuddin

Oktora

Sunarsi

(2021, January 17–18). Organizational culture, transformational leadership and the impact on knowledge sharing in selected research organization. The 1st International Conference on Economics Engineering and Social Science, InCEESS 2020, Bekasi, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.17-7-2020.2302998

56.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

57.

Raab

K. J.

Ambos

Tallman

(2014). Strong or invisible hands?–Managerial involvement in the knowledge sharing process of globally dispersed knowledge groups. Journal of World Business, 49(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.02.005

58.

Razzaque

(2020). M-Learning improves knowledge sharing over e-learning platforms to build higher education students’social capital. Sage Open, 10(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020926575

59.

Sarıkaya

Ş.

Kara

B. K

. (2020). Organizational trust and organizational support as a predictor of job satisfaction [Special issue]. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 12, 435–466. https://ijci.globets.org/index.php/IJCI/article/view/356/147

60.

Schumacker

R. E.

Lomax

R. G.

(2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press.

61.

Shateri

Hayat

A. A.

(2020). Investigating the mediating role of organizational trust in the relationship between perceived organizational support and Knowledge sharing. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 12(3), 298–314. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2020.12.016

62.

Shivers-Blackwell

S. L.

(2004). Using role theory to examine determinants of transformational and transactional leader behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(3), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190401000304

63.

Shrout

P. E.

Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

64.

Sohail

M. S.

Daud

(2009). Knowledge sharing in higher education institutions: Perspectives from Malaysia. Vine, 39(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/03055720910988841

65.

Son

T. T.

Phong

L. B.

Loan

B. T. T.

(2020). Transformational leadership and knowledge sharing: Determinants of firm’s operational and financial performance. Sage Open, 10(2), 7426. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020927426

66.

Spender

J. C.

(1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171106

67.

Stinglhamber

Marique

Caesens

Hanin

Zanet

F. D.

(2015). The influence of transformational leadership on followers’ affective commitment:The role of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Career Development International, 20(6), 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0158

68.

Suifan

T. S.

Abdallah

A. B.

Al Janini

(2018). The impact of transformational leadership on employees’ creativity: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Management Research Review, 41(1), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2017-0032

69.

Swift

Virick

(2013). Perceived support, knowledge tacitness, and provider knowledge sharing. Group & Organization Management, 38(6), 717–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113507597

70.

Tang

J. B.

E. H.

(2017). The mechanism of the impact of organizational support on job satisfaction among middle school teachers. Mathematics Practice and Cognition, 47(24), 307–318. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/93074X/201724/674385463.html

71.

Tawadros

(2015). Developing the theater of leadership: An exploration of practice and the need for research. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17(3), 14–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422315587898

72.

The chinese ministry of education. (2022). Comprehensive promotion of high-quality teacher team construction. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/s5148/202204/t20220425_621410.html

73.

Yazdani

(2021). The impact of transformational leadership on individual academy performance through knowledge sharing. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 9(2), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2021.1.004

74.

Wang

F. B.

Chen

J. X.

(2011). The impact of transformational leadership behavior on exploratory technological innovation and organizational performance in a dynamic environment. Nankai Business Review, 14(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-3448.2011.01.002

75.

Wang

S. Y.

Zhang

X. H.

(2018). Knowledge sharing among university teachers: Influencing factors and strategies. Beijing Education: Higher Education Edition, 12, 3. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/86383X/201812/6100052222.html

76.

M. L.

(2010). Practical questionnaire statistical analysis: SPSS operation and application. Chongqing University Press.

77.

W. L.

Lee

Y. C.

(2017). Empowering group leaders encourages knowledge sharing: integrating the social exchange theory and positive organizational behavior perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 474–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2016-0318

78.

Xiao

Zhang

de Pablos

P. O.

(2017). How does individuals’ exchange orientation moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing?. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(6), 1622–1639. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2017-0120

79.

(2022). Factors effecting the knowledge sharing behaviors of university teachers: An empirical study in china. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 12(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.1.1584

80.

Yang

(2014). Principals’transformational leadership in school improvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(3), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0063

81.

Yoon

S. W.

Song

J. H.

Lim

(2009). Beyond the learning process and toward the knowledge creation process: Linking between learning and knowledge in supportive learning culture. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20060

82.

Zainal

M. A.

Matore

M. E. E. M

. (2021). The influence of teachers’ self-efficacy and school leaders’ transformational leadership practices on teachers’ innovative behaviour. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6423. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126423

83.

Zhou

H. L.

Tian

Y. H.

Wang

M. H.

Y. X.

(2014). The influence of authentic leadership on teachers’ knowledge-sharing behavior: The mediating and moderating roles of perceived organizational support. Psychological and Behavioral Research, 12(2), 212–219. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/87994X/201402/49252211.html

84.

Zou

Yin

Y. X.

(2017). An empirical study on the relationship between organizational support perception and work engagement of new teachers: The mediating role of onboarding adjustment. Educational Academic Monthly, 8, 80–87. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/80530A/201708/673078648.html

85.

Zuraik

Kelly

(2018). The role of CEO transformational leadership and innovation climate in exploration and exploitation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(1), 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2017-0142