2. remain limited. This study is one of the earliest studies that investigate these inter-relationships amongst
EL, OCB and KM processes.
Keywords Leadership, Exploitative behaviour, Knowledge management, KM processes,
Organisational citizenship behaviour, Hierarchical regression, Developing countries
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
According to the knowledge-based view (KBV), contemporary organisations consider
knowledge management (KM) as an important and critical strategy to achieve sustainable
competitive advantages. Knowledge is a priceless and valuable asset and a strategic resource
that can if effectively managed, develop organisations’ capacities such as learning and
innovation, thereby leading to improved organisational performance and success
(Abdulmuhsin and Tarhini, 2020; Chen et al., 2020). KM comprises routine procedures and
regulatory practices related to “processing and integrating” knowledge (i.e. building learned
lessons and best practices) across the whole organisational system (Natalicchio et al., 2017). All
disciplines of an organisation focus on how knowledge is produced, processed and integrated
within and between organisations, which is the foundation of KM theory from a process point
of view (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2019; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). As such, KM processes are
amongst the priorities of top management’s strategic decisions owing to its significant impact
on organisations’ success (Martins et al., 2019). However, to adopt KM effectively, top
management must empower and motivate subordinates to participate efficiently and
effectively in implementing KM processes (Bavik et al., 2018). Although organisations and their
leaders are increasingly interested in adopting and using KM quickly, recent reports such as
Bain’s Management Tools and Trends survey have revealed that KM, as a strategic tool,
declines due to poor performance of deployments in organisations (Atapattu and Ranawake,
2017). Determining why KM initiatives and processes fail, even though the leaders of
organisations recognised it as a strategic priority, is imperative. What are the most important
factors that contribute to deterring the causes of failure?
Often, organisations adopt a positive and appropriate leadership approach to manage
knowledge assets effectively (Lee et al., 2006; Tse and Mitchell, 2015). Researchers such as
Abdulmuhsin and Tarhini (2020), Latif et al. (2020), Matoškov
a et al. (2018), and Naqshbandi
and Jasimuddin (2018) have recently investigated the leaders’ roles in KM. A leader is an
important element that influences how organisations confront KM (creation, sharing and
utilisation) processes, according to empowerment, motivation and planning (Atapattu and
Ranawake, 2017). Thus, the leadership style used by organisations is one of the most
significant factors influencing the success or, perhaps, failure of KM (Pellegrini et al., 2020).
In recent years, researchers have divided the leadership research approach into two
perceptions. The first is positive leadership behaviour, which examines effective leadership
practices (e.g. servant leadership) in organisations and its positive impact on subordinates
and teams. Another perspective examines the negative behaviour of leadership and the
devastating effects of ineffective leadership (e.g. destructive leadership) on the practices and
performance of subordinates and teams within organisations (He and Chen, 2014). Recent
leadership research has revealed a marked increase in examining the negative side of
destructive leadership behaviours owing to its impact on leadership literature and ethical
and organisational practices, which has been ignored for a long time (Krasikova et al., 2013).
The negative behaviours of leaders vary according to different structures and patterns of
destructive leadership (Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Destructive leadership is a complex
phenomenon which has negative effects due to the multiple behaviours of destructive
IJOA
29,3
530
3. leaders (Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Researchers conducted several studies on the use of
different leadership styles by organisations worldwide to improve KM performance
(Pellegrini et al., 2020). However, current literature indicates an endless debate about the role
of leadership patterns and leaders in the success or failure of KM.
One negative behaviour that remains unknown in the organisation literature is the
egoistic behaviour of a leader, and its impact on the workplace requires further assessment.
An egoistic leader behaves in a self-interested manner and exploits others significantly. This
negative behaviour is a repeated theme in destructive leadership behaviours (Schmid et al.,
2014). Exploitative leadership (EL) is one of the destructive patterns of leadership which
refers to leadership with the elementary intention of promoting the leader’s self-interest
through the exploitation of others. However, EL is conspicuously absent in theoretical and
empirical ideas within KM literature, and KM processes in particular (Pellegrini et al., 2020;
Schmid et al., 2019). This topic deserves considerable academic and empirical attention as EL
is a reestablished concept that captures the most important features of destructive leadership
behaviours and occurs more frequently than other negative leadership behaviours in
organisational contexts (Aravena, 2017; Schmid et al., 2018). Moreover, much is left to be
realised about the mechanisms for deterring the spread of EL behaviours and assessing EL
concept. One of the most important causes which have been essentially ignored is the
reactions of subordinates. This gap in previous studies is crucial in understanding how
subordinates engage with their colleagues in negative exchanges against the behaviours of
exploitative leaders and how this affects KM processes. Thus, subordinates’ behaviours and
reactions can be considered critical factors in reducing the negative effects of exploitative
leaders’ behaviours on KM processes (Avolio, 2007; Mackey et al., 2018).
The workplace in the 21st century has become a complex environment. Employees’ well-
being, behaviour and reactions play crucial roles that can significantly affect the
effectiveness and performance of organisations (Ocampo et al., 2018). In the past, scholars
and practitioners displayed much interest in positive leadership and subordinates’
innovative behaviours (Gu et al., 2013). However, the negative leadership (e.g. EL) that leads
to failure of adopting KM initiatives (e.g. KM processes) should not be ignored. Recently, the
various patterns of destructive leadership, especially EL, have attracted increasing interest
from academia worldwide (Wu et al., 2018). Meta-analytic evidence about leadership
literature demonstrates that destructive leadership patterns have negative consequences on
subordinates’ workplace behaviours, (i.e. OCB) (Mackey et al., 2018). For example,
exploitative leaders use their subordinates to achieve their own interests, thereby
motivating subordinates to show negative reactions instead of collaborative and synergistic
behaviours related to OCB (Schyns and Schilling, 2013), which, in turn, affect KM processes
(Hou, 2017; Schmid et al., 2018). Conversely, the lack of additional role by subordinates (i.e.
low OCB levels towards supporting their mates) can help reduce EL behaviours, that is,
thwart “leaders” self-interest’ goals (Decoster et al., 2014). Studies such as Ocampo et al.
(2018), as well as Podsakoff et al. (2016), recommended further investigation and perceive,
theoretically and empirically, the complex relationships through which OCB contribute as a
moderator variable in decreasing the negative impacts and effects of EL and the role of OCB
in the adoption and success of workplace initiatives (e.g. KM processes).
Although the importance of leadership for effective management is widely recognised,
many researchers stressed the need to expand the relationship between leadership and KM
and examine mechanisms to understand this relationship in the light of organisational
settings, including negative behaviours (Pellegrini et al., 2020). To date, research on negative
leadership behaviours (Pircher Verdorfer et al., 2019), including emerging and limited
research on EL, reveals that they can produce negative effects on the workplace, including
Knowledge
management
processes
531
4. reduced learning, innovation, satisfaction, job stability and performance (Syed et al., 2019).
These problems boost one another and encumber efficiency of scientific communication,
accumulation of knowledge, and progress of empirical research about unique negative
behaviours underlying EL and its influence on KM processes. The purpose of this study is to
address the identified gaps. This study endeavours to answer the below research questions:
RQs. Are organisations fully aware of the consequences of EL’s impact on KM
processes? What role does the OCB of subordinates play in this relationship?
Filling the gaps identified, in turn, provides many contributions. This study contributes to the
progress of literature in leadership patterns, especially negative ones. This study attempts to
provide a clear definition of EL as suggested by Schmid et al. (2018), and Krasikova et al. (2013) to
clarify the boundaries of this concept and recognise it from the related patterns of “destructive”
leadership, as well as organise the unified theoretical framework. Although several works
highlight the negative outcomes of destructive leadership in the workplace (Hou, 2017; Krasikova
et al., 2013; Mackey et al., 2018; Schyns and Schilling, 2013), our study proposes a theoretical
model that explains how EL influences KM processes and test it empirically. This study also
addresses the concerns of researchers and authors such as Ocampo et al. (2018), as well as
Podsakoff et al. (2016), who are interested in understanding the interaction between EL and OCB
and assess this interaction for re-promoting organisational practices. The purpose of our model is
to integrate OCB in the relationship between EL and KM to provide a framework that can move
forward future studies in this area. In addition, this research enriches the KM literature in
understanding the social exchange between exploitative leaders and their subordinates to
enhance KM processes. We organised our study in five key parts: introduction section, theoretical
background and hypothesis formulation, research design, empirical results, and finally, a
discussion of the results and conclusions.
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis formulation
2.1 Knowledge management processes
According to Latif et al. (2020), KM processes are deliberate managerial processes for creating,
storing, sharing and using knowledge through learned lessons and best practices to support
individuals, teams and organisations. Given varying and uncertain circumstances,
organisations realise the significance of KM processes as a critical priority and a key capability
that can be used to support innovation and other organisational goals effectively (Kianto, 2011;
Naqshbandi and Jasimuddin, 2018). Such importance stems from KBV, in which knowledge is
acquired, created, stored, encoded, shared, and used through an empowering environment to
develop competitive advantages (Bryant, 2016). KM processes vary in contemporary KM
literature (Teixeira et al., 2018; Zaim et al., 2018). According to Andreeva et al. (2011), this
diversity is explained by the simple use of different definitions to identify similar things about
the process itself. Overall, most researchers such as Kianto et al. (2019), Abusweilem and
Abualous (2019), Al Saifi (2019), Al-Emran et al. (2018), Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal
(2015), Jali et al. (2016), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Shujahat et al. (2019), Soto-Acosta et al.
(2016), Alavi and Leidner (2001), Wee and Chua (2013), and Gold et al. (2015) identified three
key KM processes: knowledge creation (KC), sharing (KS), and utilisation (KU). These
processes include other sub-processes that vary according to organisation type and size
(Mohammed, 2015; Zaim et al., 2018). Organisations link knowledge management processes
with the overall strategy using two sub-strategies: codification and personalisation (Shujahat
et al., 2019). These processes are dynamic and have a sequential structure in form of a circle or
network. KM processes cannot be considered a structure with simple sequential stages. Rather,
they represent a continuous and growing life cycle, including feedback relationships and
IJOA
29,3
532
5. complex interactions (Denizhan Kalkan, 2008). For KM processes to be effective and
sustainable, they must create the knowledge-based capability to empower subordinates to
expand experience, learning and information quantitatively and qualitatively (Aujirapongpan
et al., 2010).
2.1.1 Knowledge creation process. KC process includes several sub-processes: generation,
acquisition, creation and development (Mahdi et al., 2019; Durst and Runar Edvardsson,
2012). The purpose of KC processes is to acquire new knowledge and develop or replace
existing knowledge that organisation leaders use to restrict their competitors by motivating
subordinates to expand learning and innovation (Jali et al., 2016; Migdadi et al., 2017; Mirzaie
et al., 2019; Yusr et al., 2017). By integrating it into the organisational knowledge system, KC
can provide organisations with a dynamic capability to create innovative value through
individual workers to sustain competitive advantages. As a result, organisations grow and
innovate (Mitchell and Boyle, 2010; Nonaka and Toyama, 2005; Wee and Chua, 2013). KC
process is established on identifying the availability of knowledge resources and then
exploring sources of information and knowledge internally (research and development
about using skills and capabilities in intellectual capital) and externally (using alliances and
partnerships and outsourcing talent) (Martelo-Landroguez and Cepeda-Carri
on, 2017).
Organisations use KC processes to reinforce organisational innovation and success (Biasutti
and El-Deghaidy, 2012; Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2017).
KC as a process differs from KC as a repository. The former refers to a dynamic, effective,
and interactive process that focusses on the linkages that subordinates share in creating
new knowledge and developing the existing one. KC as a repository refers to the
“organisational knowledge”. Leaders try to expand it using a measurable concrete
performance function. Similar to tangible assets, the present “knowledge repository”
decreases as several knowledge becomes superfluous or less important, requiring a vision of
the leadership to maintain and increase the value of repositories (Akhavan et al., 2014). To
become a source of creativity and innovation, knowledge repository should be stimulated at
a given time and in a shared space (Wagner et al., 2014). Nonaka and Takeuchi (2019), and
Nonaka et al. (2008) discussed KC process in the context of the continuous spiral interaction
between tacit and explicit knowledge and individual and organisational knowledge to
leverage the accumulation of the “knowledge repository” within the four interactive patterns
(socialisation, combination, externalisation and internationalisation). KC process is the least
systematic process of KM because it is not well defined and cannot be carefully planned and
controlled (Reid, 2014). KC process is constantly evolving where inspiration, motivation and
appropriate changes play important roles in its success (Dzenopoljac et al., 2018). An
organisation succeeds in implementing KC process when it can identify problems accurately
and quickly; find new and useful solutions, ideas and visions and market new knowledge to
its beneficiaries in all areas of business such as production, management practices, and
technological processes (Durst and Runar Edvardsson, 2012; Mahdi et al., 2019).
Factors such as leadership, subordinates’ competencies, positive attitudes in the workplace
and intellectual agility are considered enablers of KC process. Formal organisational structures,
for example, a specialised problem-solving team, open communications and technology
incubation structures can also promote KC process (Lindblom and Tikkanen, 2010; Little and
Deokar, 2016; Spraggon and Bodolica, 2008). The barriers of the KC process include lack of top
management support, provocation of conflict and negative organisational policies. For
example, leaders’ intolerance of their subordinates’ mistakes and lack of policies addressing
bullying and exploitative behaviours in the workplace can lead to employees’ reluctance to
contribute to the KC process (Wee and Chua, 2013). This process varies depending on
organisation size. In small organisations, the KC process is characterised by reduced staff,
Knowledge
management
processes
533
6. increased cooperation, straightforward processes that facilitate the application of new ideas, a
consolidated culture that provides a strong foundation for change, simple structure and
interactive contact with the top and lower management. By contrast, the KC process in large
organisations is characterised by unlimited human, technical, and financial resources support
that may make the adoption of KC projects successful (Balestrin et al., 2008).
2.1.2 Knowledge sharing process. KC process alone is not enough to support
organisational decision-making, so KS process should be distinguished from KM processes
in organisations (Ding et al., 2017). For organisations to share knowledge, they must code,
index and link existing and new knowledge and update them in the organisational memory
appropriately and constantly (Wu et al., 2012). These sub-processes reduce redundancy,
improve the integration and efficiency of knowledge repositories, make it easy to access and
disseminate the required knowledge timely and promote the reuse and distribution of
knowledge to the intended beneficiaries using appropriate communication tools (Yasir and
Majid, 2017). Organisational memory provides a repository for storing existing knowledge
in the diverse forms, including written evidence, structured and unstructured information
(Alavi and Leidner, 2001), coded and stored human knowledge in expert systems,
documented organisational procedures, and processes and tacit knowledge acquired from
individuals and communities of practice (Durst and Runar Edvardsson, 2012).
KS process implies the exchange and transfer of knowledge between two or more agents,
which can be influenced by the communication channel used for sharing and the volume of
shared knowledge (Rahman et al., 2016). One or more agents receive and use the “tacit or/
and explicit knowledge” provided by another agent intentionally to capture the experiences
and skills between them (Lin et al., 2020; Ma et al., 2014). Today, the success of organisations
is evaluated by the ability of their leaders to motivate their subordinates and teams to
exchange and share ideas, experiences, insights and skills (Chiu et al., 2018). KS process is a
strategic priority and crucial capability that organisations use as an effective means to
improve and develop knowledge and stimulate a rapid response to change and innovation
and build competitive advantages (Nugroho, 2018; Wu and Lin, 2013). The knowledge value
stays low if knowledge is retained in the minds of working individuals or organisational
memory until it is shared and used. Neglecting KS process and not storing and sharing
metadata may lead to reduction and loss of knowledge (Shujahat et al., 2019; Singh and
Singh, 2019; Sirorei and Fombad, 2019; Zaim, 2016).
Leaders’ role in KS process is to manage the flow of tacit and explicit knowledge, activate
internal and external motivations, improve the organisational climate, establish
organisational values, empower subordinates and use information technology (IT). This role
leverages KS in an empowering and reliable environment that supports learning and
innovation, and thus improve overall performance (Aljuwaiber, 2020; Panahi et al., 2013;
Tohidinia and Mosakhani, 2010). KS process comprises four stages. It starts within the
minds of subordinates (self-learning), communication with one another (communication
with individuals in different functions and responsibilities), communication with working
groups (practice and professional communities) and ends by forming alliances and cross-
border partnerships (outsourcing and acquisition of knowledge) (Mueller, 2012). For an
effective and sustainable KS process, the focus should be on three basic pillars: building
trust and mutual respect, diagnosing the required knowledge and identifying the target
beneficiaries (Cao et al., 2013). KS process behaviours include knowledge donation and
collection. Organisations consider sharing explicit and tacit knowledge. The former is easy
to register, classify, store and officially transfer, whereas the latter stems from an
individual’s daily actions and mental models. As such, communicating and discussing tacit
knowledge externally is often difficult (Mohsen Allameh et al., 2014).
IJOA
29,3
534
7. 2.1.3 Knowledge utilisation process. Organisations adopt KM to properly use knowledge
in key business processes, ensuring their success (Yee-Loong Chong et al., 2014). KU process
has two sub-processes: application and implementation (Durst and Runar Edvardsson, 2012).
KU process helps achieve an organisation’s goals efficiently and effectively (Latif et al., 2020).
All the benefits of the other KM processes lead to KU process as a final goal. KU process is,
therefore, more important than the previous two processes because the knowledge that is
created and shared is not important until it is applied and used (Ouakouak and Ouedraogo,
2019). KU process does not exist without knowledge generation and sharing processes. All
KM processes contribute to building organisational capacities and skills that give individuals
and teams distinctive behaviour (Qasrawi et al., 2017). Ultimately, new individual and
collective learning processes occur only through KU process (Ramadan et al., 2017).
The effective application and implementation of new knowledge ensure that problems are
solved and proper decisions are made. Effective KU also develops the current situation,
achieves organisational innovation and helps sustain organisations in the long term and
achieve their future ambitions (Bashir and Farooq, 2019; Obeidat et al., 2016). Organisational
success is not only about owning the knowledge but also using it (Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
Knowledge is transferred from its sources to its recipients (organisational individuals) who
apply and use it, who then provide feedback through new knowledge or an update of existing
knowledge (Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2017). The role of leaders in KU process is directing
organisations on how to invest knowledge for achieving sustainable competitive advantages
(Kianto et al., 2019). The scope of potential uses of knowledge by subordinates is based on an
organisation’s key business processes that are used to achieve its objectives efficiently and
effectively (Chang and Lin, 2015).
When organisations are unable to turn knowledge into reality (i.e. use knowledge) because
of the failure of leaders, they bear the great cost, miss opportunities and waste potential
values (Supyuenyong et al., 2009). For example, lack of interest in KU process leads to the
failure to recapture the existing knowledge and failure to train and motivate individuals and
teams to think creatively. They, in turn, miss job development and self-improvement
opportunities that leaders offer to expand organisations’ operations and products (Durst and
Runar Edvardsson, 2012). To activate the KU process, organisations need a community of
positive and expert leaders. This community can provide best practices and learned lessons
adopted through KU process to increase the value of business practices (Aujirapongpan et al.,
2010). KU process ends with the assessment of KM implementation and feedback from its
beneficiaries (Denizhan Kalkan, 2008; Sangari et al., 2015).
2.2 Exploitative leadership
Leadership is one of the crucial factors influencing the success or failure of KM processes. It
drives the shared values of an organisation’s members to embrace these processes for
empowering learning and innovation. A leader is an imperative requirement in developing
strategic planning, setting general and KM-related goals and motivating subordinates to
implement them (Atapattu and Ranawake, 2017). Given the unverifiable, difficult and
aggressive circumstances, there is a need to understand negative behaviours within
organisations, including leadership behaviours due to their significant effects on
subordinates’ productivity and work ethics, as well as the failure of critical initiatives such
as KM (Brender-Ilan and Sheaffer, 2019; Sayyadi Tooranloo et al., 2018). Numerous studies
focus on trying to understand negative leadership behaviours such as abusive supervision,
bullying and destructive leadership (Aravena, 2017; Hou, 2017; Krasikova et al., 2013). These
studies discuss such behaviours in a simplified way to emphasise certain acts such as “self-
interest” of leaders but do not assess such behaviours and highlight them in a clear context
Knowledge
management
processes
535
8. (Schmid et al., 2014). In recent years, EL has emerged as a passive concept and destructive
behaviour that is most prevalent amongst negative leadership styles. It has caused the
failure of many initiatives within contemporary organisations to empower competitiveness
and sustainability (Schmid et al., 2019).
EL’s principles are based on two ideas.
(1) Leaders feel that they are qualified, and, therefore, they tend to take advantages for
themselves even if they do not contribute (Stouten et al., 2005).
(2) They also prioritise self-interest and personal goals and manipulate, deceive and
exploit others through lies and hypocrisy (Stouten and Tripp, 2009; Williams, 2014;
Wisse and Rus, 2012). van Dijk and De Cremer (2006) argued that leaders’ “self-
interest and personal goals” are key to understanding EL, and thus are deemed as
the main driver behind the emergence of negative behaviours of subordinates in
the workplace (Finkelstein, 2012; Krasikova et al., 2013).
The exploitative behaviours of leaders lead to adverse feedbacks and reactions within an
organisation and unstable outcomes according to social exchange theory (SET) such as
reduced job satisfaction and low organisational performance (Brender-Ilan and Sheaffer,
2019). The self-interest concept stems from the egoistic behaviours of leaders such as
prioritising personal goals over their subordinates through manipulation and lying, blaming
subordinates for simple mistakes, taking advantage of their subordinates’ achievement by
basing their own success on subordinates’ achievement and placing pressure on
subordinates to accomplish tasks, amongst other hidden bullying behaviours (Maner and
Mead, 2010; Schmid et al., 2019, 2018; Williams, 2014).
Camps et al. (2012) defined exploitative leaders as “leaders who put their well-being and
personal interests above the needs of their subordinates and the objectives of organisation”. EL
is about stimulating self-love of leaders at the expense of their subordinates. Exploitative leaders
focus on serving their own interests and goals rather than paying attention to their subordinates’
needs (Hoogervorst et al., 2011). Moreover, such leaders claim subordinates’ achievements as
their own successes (Cramwinckel et al., 2012). Thus, the concepts of self-interest and priorities
of exploitative leaders are negatively reflected in the motivation and behaviour of subordinates
and their ability to develop insights and ideas that benefit the organisations.
Exploitative leaders usually use unjustified and extraordinary job pressures through
complex tasks and intolerable schedules and deadlines (Burns, 2017; Tepper et al., 2007).
Such leaders sometimes use hidden aggressive behaviour against certain subordinates who
are not responsive to their personal interests. These leaders use bargaining behaviours by
offering employees’ growth and learning opportunities in exchange for exploiting them for
their own interests (Schmid et al., 2019). The negative behaviours of EL increase gradually.
Exploitative leaders engage in manipulative and seditious acts to ensure their own interests
are met (Lin et al., 2017). They keep the most beneficial team members close to them or grant
new authority to subordinates in a public and friendly manner, even if these subordinates
are overloaded with other tasks (Schilling, 2009). Exploitative leaders can become
aggressive by leveraging their negative behaviours to commit bullying in the workplace
(Fontes et al., 2019). The exploitation of subordinates increases by assigning complex
workloads and responsibilities and impossible tasks or impeding their chances of getting a
promotion (Tuckey et al., 2017). Such behaviours of “self-interest fostering” are related to
various structures of destructive leadership, including pseudo-transformational,
personalised charismatic and despotic leadership (Aravena, 2017; Burns, 2017; Schmid et al.,
2014). These behaviours differ from the concepts and behaviours of servant leadership in the
workplace, which turns leaders into instructors and mentors to their subordinates who help
IJOA
29,3
536
9. them achieve their goals of developing, learning and innovation (Elche et al., 2020). An
example of such behaviour is the use of the workplace by the leader as a conducive
environment for subordinates to try different KM approaches without worrying about being
punished for any bad results (Atapattu and Ranawake, 2017).
An exploitative leader has repetitive qualities that can be easily traced if monitored
constantly such as selfishness, verbal oppression, deception, bullying, lying and hypocrisy.
Such a leader is a sneaky person who does not express his or her shortcomings and tries to
show other qualities such as kindness and dignity (Burns, 2017). Exploitative leaders
practice the “Dark Triad” theory to commit social discouragement against their
subordinates. This behaviour, over time, aims to impede subordinates’ abilities to establish
positive social relationships, reinforce business success and maintain a positive reputation
(Duffy et al., 2002). During most work-related activities, such leaders may emotionally or
even physically assault their subordinates due to excessive pressure (Wu et al., 2018). The
negative impact is extended across key business processes which indirectly affect an
organisation’s productivity, efficiency and effectiveness (Kish-Gephart et al., 2010). “Dark
Triad” theory describes the social personality of exploitative leaders in three interrelated
traits: psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism. Such traits represent EL
characteristics that are hidden under the names of selfishness, cruelty and manipulation
(Caponecchia et al., 2011; Paulhus and Williams, 2002). Machiavellianism refers to a leader’s
pessimistic, abusive and immoral beliefs such as emotional isolation; agent intention and
self-interest and long-term strategic planning, manipulation, exploitation and deception
(Tucker et al., 2016). Narcissism includes an inflated view of the ego, illusions about control
and success, development of admiration and the desire to promote self-love (Spain et al.,
2016). Finally, an exploitative leader is characterised by a psychological disorder of
committing sedition against subordinates, having trivial emotions, adopting parasitic
lifestyles and sometimes involving criminal activities (DeShong et al., 2015). When such
traits are exhibited by most leaders of an organisation, resisting and laying off these bad
leaders is difficult because they are able to justify their negative behaviour due to their
loyalty to the organisation. Nevertheless, it is not an impossible task, especially when
observing the repeated attitudes and behaviours of such leaders (Solas, 2016).
According to Schmid et al. (2019), the five factors of EL that can be used to measure this
behaviour are displaying genuine egoistic behaviours, taking credit, exerting job pressure,
under challenging and undermining subordinates’ job development and growth and
manipulating subordinates. Genuine egoistic behaviour applies to the use of force purely for
personal gain. Taking credit applies to leaders who are being appreciated for the achievement
of their subordinates (Schmid et al., 2016). Exerting job pressure entails placing exceptional,
unjustified and excessive psychological and physical pressure on employees to perform tasks
for leaders’ own interests. The undermining of development and job growth refers to the acts
of consistently assigning boring and useless routine tasks that leaders do not wish to
undertake and hindering the career progression of their subordinates. Manipulation describes
the sedition of subordinates to benefit the leaders (Schmitz et al., 2014).
2.3 Organisational citizenship behaviours
OCB is defined as a discretionary, individual, and workplace-related behaviour that goes
beyond routine tasks and reinforces the social or psychological environment, which is not
officially required by the reward system. OCB promotes the desire of individuals for positive
cooperation. Such behaviour is associated with individual performance (e.g. administrative
classifications of an employee’s performance) and organisational performance results (e.g.
productivity and efficiency) (Ocampo et al., 2018; Organ, 2018). The review of OCB in the
Knowledge
management
processes
537
10. organisational environment provides an in-depth understanding of subordinate attitudes
and voluntary “assistive and healthy” behaviour. Subordinates exhibit “innovative and
instinctive behaviour” as an OCB that exceeds the mandatory work needs within
organisations. Organisations use OCB which is a critical driver for organisational
effectiveness to adapt to changing and unexpected situations (Kasa and Hassan, 2015). OCB
directly affects leader–subordinate relationships in informing subordinates of concerns
about negative behaviours at the workplace. In addition, OCB strongly encourages
subordinates to communicate fully with their leaders (Yildirim, 2014).
OCB is based on Blau (1964) as the most commonly used theoretical scope for the study
of OCB concept. This critical theory focusses on the idea of “reciprocity” at economic, social
and emotional aspects, i.e. people tend to assist those who help them and may exceed the
limits of their formal relationships (Ocampo et al., 2018). Positive behaviours (e.g. self-
improvement and collaboration efforts) arise from assistive behaviours that employees
show towards their colleagues and organisations to achieve their goals (Finkelstein, 2012).
Thus, OCB is associated with positive concepts in the workplace such as trust, commitment,
social communication and altruism (Chan and Lai, 2017; Eby et al., 2015; Singh and
Srivastava, 2009).
Organ (1988) identified five key factors of OCB: sportsmanship, conscientiousness,
altruism, civic virtue, and courtesy. Altruism is described as a positive, voluntary and social
behaviour that aims to help the recipient. The role of altruistic subordinates arises from
offering voluntary help for their colleagues’ well-being within the workplace (Organ, 1988).
The most important altruism behaviours in organisations include helping a colleague who is
absent, supporting new employees and helping co-workers with heavy workloads. These
behaviours positively affect the outcomes of organisational performance and effectiveness
(Podsakoff et al., 2016). Conscientiousness increases the effectiveness and efficiency of staff
in performing their responsibilities and duties as this attribute is used to refer to individuals
who are organised, responsible and hardworking (Witt et al., 2002). Organ (1988) discussed
conscientiousness in the context of organisational commitment in terms of dedication to
work, which goes beyond official requirements to voluntary informal requirements (e.g.
continuing to work long hours or volunteering to perform complex duties and works other
than routine tasks). Courtesy helps in handling critical situations and problems, then
performing the required actions to minimise the effects of the problem in the future by acts
such as respect, civil behaviour, politeness, and gentleness (Organ, 1997). Intelligent and
courteous subordinates make sincere efforts to reduce conflicts between working groups to
help their leaders, and they try to avoid any problem with their co-workers (Podsakoff et al.,
2009). Organisations rely on working individuals who possess civic virtue when making
changes and improvements. These individuals seek to engage actively and constructively
with their colleagues for the well-being of the organisation’s political life and support its
functions. They also work with their leaders to reduce resistance to future changes (Organ,
1988). Civic virtue behaviours include attending unsolicited or binding meetings and taking
the initiative to support organisational improvements and changes (Podsakoff and
MacKenzie, 1997). Itiola et al. (2014) described sportsmanship as a measure of will and
determination to meet difficult duties and responsibilities in stressful working environments
and tolerate pressures and ambiguous situations. Sportsmanship is also defined as
endurance behaviour towards anger, which is inevitable in almost every organisational
environment (Organ, 1997). Good sportsmanship helps reduce the turnover of employees
and improve the overall organisational climate (Ocampo et al., 2018). These five factors can
be organised into two groups: OCB for other colleagues (civility and altruism) and OCB
IJOA
29,3
538
11. oriented towards achieving the organisation goals (consciousness, sportsmanship and civic
virtue) (Zhang et al., 2019).
2.4 Conceptual model and hypothesis formulation
This study proposes a theoretical insight into the linkages between EL and KM processes
(Figure 1). Based on Blau (1964), this study uses SET to explain the proposed model paths.
SET describes “social change” as a flow of interactive (negative or positive) exchanges
amongst different individuals and is founded on the “normative principles” of reciprocity
within social exchanges (Gu et al., 2018). According to these principles, individual workers
are encouraged to exchange positive attitudes and behaviours towards other individuals
who value them and their contributions. In light of this, organisations are usually trying to
empower the performance of their subordinates and teams by using positive leaders to
sustain organisational life (Gilstrap and Hart, 2020). Given that organisational success
depends on employees’ ability to innovate (Story and Castanheira, 2019), the success of KM
processes are influenced by the positive behaviours of top management leaders towards
subordinates and teams to motivate and develop their personal knowledge and collective
intelligence for generating practical wisdom and achieving competitive advantage (Bashir
and Farooq, 2019; Biasutti and El-Deghaidy, 2012; Liu et al., 2012). Although leaders tend to
be authentic mentors, several corporate scandals show that sometimes leaders act in a self-
serving manner by exploiting the organisation’s resources for individual gain (Camps et al.,
2012). In this scene, a mutual and low-quality exchange connection is built when one
individual does not favour another (Blau, 1964). These exploitative behaviours affect the
effectiveness of organisations (e.g. theft and corruption) and the innovation of subordinates
(e.g. abuse and retaliation). These behaviours can also be deliberate (such as suppressing or
exploiting subordinates) or simply because of leaders’ bad mood (Einarsen et al., 2007).
Leader-member exchange (LMX) is founded on SET rules and reflects the quality of
social exchange relationships amongst leaders and their subordinates (Nazir et al., 2020).
The quality of LMX relies on appreciation, respect, and mutual trust. The LMX scope
suggests that the quality of social exchange with subordinates can be affected by leaders’
behaviours. Thus, these behaviours are regarded as the antecedent of LMX (Newman et al.,
2015). SET and LMX have been adopted extensively as a theoretical framework linking
Figure 1.
The proposed
conceptual model of
study
Knowledge
management
processes
539
12. leader behaviours to subordinates outcomes (Gu et al., 2018; Wu and Lee, 2017). Exploitative
leaders tend to require employees to work based on their self-interest and punishes
rebellious subordinates. The occurrence of EL may cause various consequences on
subordinates and team members within organisations owing to their awareness of and
feeling towards the negative behaviour of exploitative leaders (Schmid et al., 2014). Under
this situation, exploitative behaviours release a signal to subordinates that leaders and
employees are in a superior-inferior relationship, which stirs negative emotions amongst
subordinates towards leaders such as terror and fear, thereby reducing the wish of
employees to be rewarded based on the “leader–employee” binary relation. The emotional
exchange between employees and leaders is also reduced (Gu et al., 2018; Gu et al., 2013).
The most significant adverse effect is dissuading the concepts of innovation, learning, trust,
collaboration and satisfaction that empower KM processes, thereby failing the KC, KS and
KU processes (Mahdi et al., 2019). Specifically, we propose that EL, as a destructive side of
leadership, is likely to damage the exchange relationship (low LMX) between leaders and
subordinates and finally poses a major threat to KM processes by reducing the wish of
subordinates and work teams to achieving the organisational objectives and goals.
To be innovative, subordinates need continuous support, encouragement and
empowerment, open-mindedness and a comprehensive pool of diverse resources (Hou, 2017;
Mahdi et al., 2019). Innovative work needs constructive and proactive behaviours in which
subordinates create new knowledge to take self-directed actions to anticipate or initiate change
(Griffin et al., 2007). An example of such behaviours is subordinated enhancing their capability
to discover and capture new knowledge through processes of socialisation, combination,
internalisation and externalisation within the context of organisational KC to enhance
organisational learning (Gomez, 2007). Conversely, if subordinates realise that the failure of the
proposed innovation will result in bullying or reprimand by their leaders, they are likely to
avoid discovering and capturing new knowledge to develop innovative ideas. Fear of being
criticised by a destructive exploitative leader discourages subordinates to learn or produce new
ideas or positive proposals (Hou, 2017; Yidong and Xinxin, 2012). In addition, limiting the
aspects and circumstances of innovation by exploitative leaders reduces awareness amongst
subordinates of the importance of creating new knowledge, thereby hindering their innovative
and proactive behaviour. EL nourishes these threats, so this mentality complicates the
constructive actions of subordinates in the KC process and the advancement of organisational
learning through their understanding of negative leadership behaviours such as
underestimating their opinions, accusations of failure to exert the required efforts, public
professional humiliation and exclusion from job development opportunities (Schmid et al.,
2019). Consequently, subordinates feel pessimistic about supporting their colleagues or
improving their workplace. Basing on the above discussion, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H1. EL has negative direct effects on KC process.
KM processes become effective when leaders foster the concepts of trust-building,
collaboration and coordination and collective cooperation amongst subordinates (Xu and
Bernard, 2013). Thus, subordinates work together to improve creativity or combat changes
in the workplace and show constructive and adaptive behaviours that support their
responsibilities and coping skills (Griffin et al., 2007). This happens when KS and
continuous learning mechanisms are implemented, which lead to improving the response of
subordinates and their functional adaptation to change. KS process is reinforced by helping
subordinates to anticipate and resolve unexpected events. It is centred on understanding
and exchange of new ideas and perceptions so that employees engage in the constant flow of
IJOA
29,3
540
13. discussions (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2015; Dalkir, 2017). Subordinates believe
that the leaders of their organisations are trustworthy mentors and legitimate distributors of
organisational resources, including knowledge (Abdulmuhsin and Tarhini, 2021). To the
contrary, when exploitative leaders disregard the interests of the company or the needs of
subordinates, they foster a sense of isolation and push social and functional divergence
amongst subordinates. The subordinates consequently are unable to interact and respond
quickly to work conditions (Einarsen et al., 2007). This is especially true when leaders
display abusive behaviour in a fraudulent way for personal gain, show no respect for the
feelings of subordinates, viciously reprimand or retaliate against staff, restrain the progress
and job development of subordinates and exploit subordinates (Aravena, 2017).
Schaubroeck and Yu (2017) pointed out that EL behaviours in the workplace trigger
dissatisfaction and emotional stress amongst employees, which limit their ability to accept
new organisational goals and values that shape the foundations of KS process. For example,
the manipulative behaviour of exploitative leaders affects the dynamics of meaningful
relations between subordinates such as trust, collaboration and cooperation, which form the
basis for managing the flow and sharing of knowledge and adjusting to the surrounding
environment (Hou, 2017). Therefore, KS decreases because of the low emotional connection
of subordinates within teams and organisations. The working environment does not
promote collaboration or brainstorming, which, in turn, contributes to inhibiting effective
creative behaviour. On the basis of the above discussion, the following hypothesis is put
forward:
H2. EL has negative direct effects on the KS process.
Know-how focusses on how teams and subordinates execute day-to-day tasks accurately
and efficiently. The process of applying this knowledge arises from the professional
behaviour of subordinates within teams and organisations. Such behaviours are embodied
in what subordinates do to apply knowledge, implement solutions to address the current
problems and create the positive and constructive ideas for future (Gilstrap and Hart, 2020;
Griffin et al., 2010). Motivating subordinates to use knowledge in organisations decreases
the potential risk of failures, dismissals and unnecessary duplicate ideas and procedures. In
addition, this motivating process improves productivity and effectiveness and continually
transforms ideas and insights into embodied products and services to support
organisational innovation (Ode and Ayavoo, 2019). According to subordinates’ point of
view, the leader has the legal authority and control over planning, allocation of resources,
guidance, supervision, evaluation, compensation, rewards and discipline of workers.
Therefore, the behaviour and attitudes of leaders affect the behaviour of subordinates and
their emotional reactions significantly (Hou, 2017; Wang and Chen, 2014). In this scenario,
the destructive behaviour of exploitative leaders decreases the effectiveness of the
professional actions and behaviours of subordinates by raising the risks they face in the KU
process through various leader’s negative practices, including increased stress (e.g.
excessive job pressure, unreasonable deadlines and unnecessary delays) and job insecurity
(e.g. failure to reward, unnecessary tasks, deferral of responsibility, repeated reminders of
mistakes and planning for failure) (Aravena, 2017; Hou, 2017; Schmid et al., 2019). In light of
the foregoing discussion, the following hypothesis is given:
H3. EL has negative direct effects on KU process.
Leadership and staff behaviour are key themes in organisational behaviour (Wu et al., 2018).
In LMX theory (two-way relationships), many contemporary studies ignore the role of
Knowledge
management
processes
541
14. subordinates’ feedback and reactions in modifying their leaders’ behaviour, particularly those
related to negative behaviours of EL (Decoster et al., 2014; Park, 2020). The theory of “relational
leadership” suggests that subordinates can enhance their collective needs and objectives by
influencing their leaders through rational persuasion for instance (Terpstra-Tong et al., 2020).
This research focusses on the important aspect of this relationship using OCB. In organisations,
OCB is a critical and essential voluntary social behaviour in supporting leaders to achieve their
goals, thereby supporting their vision to improve organisational performance (Pio and
Lengkong, 2020). Subordinates with high OCB provide comfort to positive leaders, help them
manage critical situations in the workplace, provide increased value to leaders in resource
management and reduce their workload to achieve organisational success (Elche et al., 2020).
On the contrary, when leaders exhibit exploitative negative behaviour in organisations for their
self-interests, they provoke negative feedback and reactions from subordinates (Schmid et al.,
2019). According to SET, social interactions between the behaviour of exploitative leaders and
the reactions of subordinates explain implicit obligations to restore negative social interactions
between them (Mackey et al., 2018). In doing so, subordinates do not adopt OCB that improves
KM processes (e.g. inaction or failure to assist their co-workers voluntarily or/and not
complying with high standards of organisational success). This, in turn, will show exploitative
leaders that subordinates are not primarily interested in the results identified, which may make
them more concerned about their personal goals and self-interest (Decoster et al., 2014; Schmid
et al., 2019). That is, subordinates who do not participate in OCB oppose leaders’ goals and
expectations, which may be an obstacle to them. These subordinates’ reactions lead to less
valuable resources and support for exploitative leaders (UhlBien, 2003). Given that the self-
interest of exploitative leaders is thwarted by the low OCB levels shown by subordinates as
reactions, this constitutes a negative social exchange (Kapil and Rastogi, 2019). Specifically, if
the self-interest and personal interests of the leaders are thwarted, they can reassess their
selfish actions and seek to mitigate their passive exploitative behaviours. The leaders are
required to respond to the legitimate needs and collective interests of subordinates (Padilla
et al., 2007; Schmid et al., 2014). The moderating role of subordinates’ OCB reduces the negative
effect of EL on KM processes by simply changing the actions of the exploitative leaders to
restore positive respect for the proactive, adaptive and professional behaviours of subordinates
to achieve organisational excellence. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4. OCB moderates the negative relationship between EL and (a) KC process, (b) KS
process and (c) KU process such that the relationship is less negative when OCB is
low than when it is high.
3. Research design
3.1 Variables settings and instrument development
To test the proposed conceptual model “the impact of exploitative leadership on
knowledge management processes! And what the role does the organisational
citizenship behaviours of subordinates play in this relationship?”, a measure was
adopted to conduct a survey of faculty members in a Middle Eastern country. The
study variables include an independent variable (exogenous) i.e. the “exploitative
leadership” that was measured using the (15) indicators of the scale proposed by
(Schmid et al., 2019). “Knowledge management processes: creation, sharing and
utilisation” is represented by dependent variables (endogenous) that were measured
using (22) indicators (including 3 sub-processes: 9 for (KC), 6 for (KS) and 7 for (KU)),
which were extracted from reliable studies in the literature of (KM) (Adeinat and
Abdulfatah, 2019; Andreeva et al., 2011; Harandi et al., 2018; Heisig and Vorbeck, 2001;
IJOA
29,3
542
15. Martelo-Landroguez and Cepeda-Carri
on, 2017; Obeidat et al., 2016; Sangari et al., 2015;
Shujahat et al., 2019; and Zaim et al., 2019). Using the other (10) indicators provided by
Ocampo et al. (2018), Podsakoff et al. (1990), and Zhang et al. (2019), “organisational
citizenship behaviours” were measured as a moderating variable of the hypothetical
relationship between independent and dependent variables.
Using self-assessed ratings, the questionnaire comprises four parts. Part A includes the
demographics of respondents and other information such as (work experience, academic title),
while Parts (B–D) include the (47) measurement items used to measure three main constructs,
namely, (EL, OCB and KMP: including KC, KS and KU). The measures of these constructs have
been adapted, revised and verified (through literature review and interviews with specialised
professors) to suit and fit the purpose of the study. The five-point Likert scale was used to
calculate the respondents’ level of agreement with the questionnaire statements. Such
statements were also consistent to ensure the respondents would be free from any bias. In
addition, the order the questionnaire statements were presented to the respondents was shifted
(Harandi et al., 2018). The questionnaire was sent to the respondents in English and Arabic,
with an emphasis on using the back-to-back translation method to ensure that the two versions
would have the same meaning across both languages.
3.2 Data collection
Although Iraq was once seen as a developed country, it is now classified as a developing
country due to many decades of social, political and economic instability and wars.
Although little is known about how this affects the higher education system in general, in
this context, particularly after the recent war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-
ISIS, the tasks of academic development and scientific research at Iraqi universities became
difficult, as became the competitive and aggressive nature of global academic work. In
addition, it can be said that the leadership skills necessary for academic teachers are crucial
given the complexities involved in the above scenario. The data were collected from
academics at four public universities [Mosul (UoM), Northern Technical (NTU), Nineveh and
Al-Hamdaniya] in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, after receiving official approval from
university presidents. In coordination with HR managers, we were given access to teaching
staff databases containing their job information, as well as contact addresses, including
telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. The directors of higher education at these
universities were promised that they would receive an executive summary report of our
study findings as an incentive to complete the survey. Using a random number generator
that matches databases of (4,347) academic staff identify numbers, a list of 460 respondents
was randomly selected on the basis of Thompson’s (2012) sample size equation at the level
of significance 95% and an error margin of 5%. The authors, therefore, assumed that the
larger the sample is, the more likely the findings will be more applicable and generalised to
the target population.
Once the relationship between the subordinates and the leader is examined, the degree of
analysis is typically assessed either individually or in a team environment (Pellegrini et al.,
2020). In that sense, the list of participants was emailed and shared on the WhatsApp and
Viber platforms. The emails and messages addressed to the participants included “research
title, vision, objectives, as well as its credibility and reliability (referring to using respondent
data with absolute confidentiality for scientific evaluation only) to build trust”, as well as
“confirmation of voluntary participation” to the survey. A total of 446 responses were
received from the participants as a preliminary confirmation to co-operate.
Our research builds on a cross-sectional approach to deal with the study field over a
limited time span of data collection and analysis. During three different and consecutive
Knowledge
management
processes
543
16. phases (one-month interval between each stage), the sample was contacted using an online
survey and a questionnaire distributed onsite. General information about respondents and
an assessment of “exploitative leadership” indicators, were requested at interval “A”. One
month later, at interval “B”, the assessment of indicators of “organisational citizenship
behaviours” was requested from respondents who participated at interval “A”. Two months
later after interval “A”, at interval “C”, the assessment of “knowledge management
processes” indicators were requested from participants at interval “B”. These consecutive
and separate intervals allowed the authors to reduce common method bias problems to
obtain reliable results of the study hypotheses (Podsakoff et al., 2003). At interval “A”, 446
questionnaires were sent to participants and only 401 responses were received at the
beginning of interval “B”. By the end of interval “C”, the total responses received that passed
intervals “A” and “B” were 361 responses. Five responses were excluded as they were not
valid for analysis. Finally, 356 responses were collected from participants over a span of
three months with a response rate of (77.39%), which is statistically acceptable. The
demographics of the study sample are shown in Table 1. The majority of respondents were
male (53.9%) and over two-thirds of respondents were over 45 years old with over 14 years
of academic experience. Moreover, over half of the study sample held a Master’s degree, with
most (43.8%) holding a lecturer title.
3.3 Measurement model
The 47 indicators of the study constructs were analysed using SPSS v.25 and AMOS v.24
software, using the exploratory and confirmatory factors. The results of the exploratory
factor analysis showed that the loaded factors of these indicators were distributed amongst
five main factors, thus their loaded factors values ranged between (0.698) and (0.929), which
was justifiable and significant because they were higher than the cut-off threshold (0.60) at
the level (0.001) as recommended by Byrne (2010), and Ya-Xing et al. (2018), which signifies
its reliability. Therefore, no indicator was excluded from the (47) indicators in the
Table 1.
Demographics
Categories Details # (%)
Gender
(#faculty_members)
Male 192 53.9
Female 164 46.1
Age
(#years)
26–35 22 6.2
36–45 74 20.8
46–55 110 30.9
56–65 95 26.7
More than 65 55 15.4
Education level Master 202 56.7
Doctorate 154 43.3
Experience
(#academic_years)
1–7 37 10.4
8–14 68 19.1
15–21 133 37.3
22–28 75 21.1
More than 28 43 12.1
Academic title Assistant Lecturer 90 25.3
Lecturer 156 43.8
Assistant Professor 71 19.9
Professor 39 11.0
Note: n = 356
IJOA
29,3
544
17. measurement model. This was confirmed by the value of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy of (0.972), the value of approximate chi-square was (16,451.322), degree
of freedom was (1,081) and the value of (P) was less than (0.001). All values indicate that a
normal distribution of the study sample was obtained, which resembled the normal
theoretical statistical distribution. Thus, the used measurement helps in generalising the
study findings, which represent the data of the study population in the way (Abdulmuhsin
and Tarhini, 2021).
Using a two-tailed t-statistic, non-response bias was tested by comparing responses of
the five study constructs of the first 25%, with the last 25% in the three intervals
(Armstrong and Overton, 2018). The results showed that there were no significant
differences based on the study constructs, which, in turn, indicated non-response bias, and
therefore did not constitute a serious concern. In addition, Harman’s single-factor method
and common factor latent technique were used to detect common method bias. The results
showed that all five constructs of the study which had eigenvalues greater than (1.0)
represented 72.4% of the total variation, and the first factor represented 44.9% of the total
variation. Similarly, when all indicators of the study constructs were associated with a
single factor, this factor represented 45% of the total variation and the average method-
based variance of the study indicators was less than (1%), indicating a lack of common
method bias according to Podsakoff et al. (2003).
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis showed that the values of squared
multiple correlations (SMC) for the study indicators ranged between (0.406) and (0.924),
which is greater than the cutoff threshold value (0.30) as recommended by Hair et al. (2010).
This is supported by the goodness of fit index values of (x2 = 1,427.281, df = 1,024, P
0.001; x2/df = 1.394, RMSEA = 0.033, CFI = 0.975 and TLI = 0.974), respectively, which are
better than the targeted values for the cutoff thresholds as recommended worldwide
according to Xiao et al. (2018).
The quality of the measurement model used in the study was examined using reliability,
convergent and discriminant validity tests. Table 2 shows that the values of the alpha
coefficient of Cronbach ranged from (0.932) to (0.973) and that the values of composite
Table 2.
Inter-correlations,
Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients, AVE
and CR
Variables n m s CR AVE (EL) (OCB) (KC) (KS) (KU)
Exploitative
leadership (EL)
15 3.051 0.782 0.964 0.640 (0.960)
Organisational
citizenship
behaviour (OCB)
10 2.938 0.851 0.942 0.620 0.340*
(0.932)
Knowledge
creation (KC)
9 3.272 0.896 0.971 0.786 0.591*
0.636*
(0.966)
Knowledge
sharing (KS)
6 3.203 0.951 0.963 0.812 0.381*
0.613*
0.533*
(0.954)
Knowledge
utilisation (KU)
7 3.101 1.233 0.981 0.879 0.620*
0.513*
0.806*
0.564*
(0.979)
Notes: AVE ¼
P
n
i ¼ 1
Li2
,
n
; n = number of items in a model, N = 356; m: Mean, s: Standard Deviation,
(Italic Numbers): Coefficients of Cronbach’s alpha; CR ¼
P
n
i ¼ 1
Li
2
,
P
n
i ¼ 1
Li
2
þ
P
n
i ¼ 1
Var e
ð Þ
; Li = factor loading of
every item. *
There is a significant correlation at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
Knowledge
management
processes
545
18. reliability (CR) ranged between (0.942) and (0.981), all of which came above the cutoff
threshold of (0.70), as defined globally, according to Fornell and Larcker (2018), and Mahdi
et al. (2019). Also, the values of average variance extracted (AVE) for all study constructs
ranged between (0.620) and (0.879), which is higher than the recommended value of (0.50)
according to Fornell and Larcker (1981). All these tests have demonstrated a high level of
reliability and robust convergence of the measurement model’s indicators used in our study.
To examine the validity of the discriminant, Table 3 shows that all the values of the
square root of average variance extracted (HAVE) of the five study constructs in the
diagonal row were higher than Covariance Coefficients. This is confirmed by the values of
the Alpha coefficients of Cronbach (bold numbers) in Table 2, all of which were higher than
the inter-correlations between the study constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 2018). The
correlation matrix in Table 2 also reveals that the highest correlation coefficient between the
study constructs was (0.806), which is below the recommended cut-off threshold of (0.850)
according to Kline (2005). This confirms the absence of multicollinearity between the main
variables, indicating a good discriminant validity of the measurement model constructs
(Mahdi et al., 2019). Overall, all of the above results showed that the measures of study
variables are homogeneous and have the reliability and validity for us to conduct further
statistical analyses of the data obtained.
4. Structural model and hypotheses test results
To test hypotheses in the structural model, the hierarchical regression analysis was applied
using PROCESS Macro v3.3 in SPSS v.25. This analysis is practical for testing the study
hypotheses more than structural equation modelling (SEM), due to the accuracy of its results
in analysing models with multiple moderating effects, particularly using the product term
approach (Chen et al., 2020; Hayes, 2017). Table 4 presents the results of a moderating effect
analysis of (OCB) in three sets of sub-models, which are the effect relationships of EL on-
knowledge creation, knowledge sharing and knowledge utilisation. To determine the effect
on the dependent variable, two steps of analysis were developed for each sub-model where
the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable was examined in the first
step, and then the moderate variable and its interaction with the independent variable were
included in the second step. In addition, Table 4 and Figure 2 present the results of the effect
coefficients for all the hypotheses, as well as the variance values caused by the independent
and moderate variables in each model.
Regarding the strength and direction of relationships, the absolute values of
standardised path coefficients that are less than (0.30) represent a small effect, and whist
these absolute values range from (0.30) to (0.70), they represent a moderate effect, and if
these absolute values are greater than (0.70), they represent a significant impact (Al Ahbabi
et al., 2019; Kline, 1998). These values also represent a negative relationship between
Table 3.
Square root of AVEs
for the discriminant
validity of the study
Variables 1 2 3 4 5
(EL) (0.800)
(OCB) 0.166 (0.787)
(KC) 0.352 0.407 (0.887)
(KS) 0.230 0.201 0.424 (0.901)
(KU) 0.414 0.368 0.708 0.503 (0.938)
Note: (square root of AVEs) covariance coefficients
IJOA
29,3
546
19. variables when their sign is minus, and the relationship between them is positive when the
sign of these values is plus (Abdulmuhsin and Tarhini, 2021). Overall, the results of H1, H2
and H3 showed that a moderate negative significance impact of EL behaviours existed on
each KM processes amongst faculty members at the Iraqi universities. The process of
knowledge utilisation of these academics is most affected by the occurrence of negative
behaviours of EL based on (b = 0.503; p 0.01; R2
= 46.9%), followed by knowledge
creation process (b = 0.425; p 0.01; R2
= 53.9%), and finally, knowledge sharing process
Table 4.
Hierarchical
regression results
Variables
Knowledge
creation (KC)
Knowledge
sharing (KS)
Knowledge
utilisation (KU)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2
Main effects
Exploitative
leadership (EL)
0.567**
(0.044)
0.425**
(0.038)
0.367**
(0.049)
0.310**
(0.051)
0.602**
(0.042)
0.503**
(0.041)
Organisational
citizenship
behaviour (OCB)
– 0.484**
(0.038)
– 0.210**
(0.051)
– 0.338**
(0.041)
EL OCB – 0.138**
(0.038)
– 0.115*
(0.051)
– 0.100*
(0.041)
R2
0.322 0.539 0.135 0.182 0.363 0.469
DR2
– 21.7% – 4.7% – 10.6%
F 168.10**
137.05**
55.120**
26.165**
201.70**
103.65**
Effect size (f2) 0.32 0.05 0.14
Notes: n = 356, **
There is a significant correlation at the 0.01 level (two-tailed), *
There is a significant
correlation at the 0.05 level (two-tailed), (Italic_Numbers): Standard Errors, Effect size (f2) = [R2
(interaction effect model) R2
(main effect model)]/[1 R2
(main effect model)], Reported values are
standardised regression coefficients
Figure 2.
Study model results
Knowledge
management
processes
547
20. (b = 0.310; p 0.01; R2
= 18.2%), and therefore, the first three hypotheses of the study
were supported and accepted.
Organisational citizenship behaviours played a positive and significance moderate role in the
relationship between EL and KM processes; knowledge creation process (b = 0.138; p 0.01),
followed by knowledge sharing process (b = 0.115; p 0.05) and finally knowledge utilisation
process (b = 0.100; p 0.05), thus supporting H4. Figure 3 displays these moderate effects.
Knowledge management processes increased rapidly, as expected, at low levels of OCB in
response to EL on which leaders quickly reassess and reduce their exploitative behaviours.
Moreover, knowledge creation, sharing and utilisation processes continued to grow because of
leveraged levels of organisational citizenship behaviour despite the endurance of exploitative
leaders.
To further assess the importance of the moderate effects of OCB on the relationship
between EL and KM processes, we calculated the total impact size (f2) by comparing
changes in (R2
) between the key and interactive effects (Chen et al., 2020). Table 4 shows
that the moderate impact of OCB with EL led to a significant increase in the value of R2
to create knowledge by (21.7%) at (F = 137.05; p 0.001), indicating a high impact size
(F2 = 0.32). Also, the moderate impact of OCB with EL increased the value of (R2
) for
knowledge sharing and utilisation processes by (4.7%) and (10.6%) at (F = 26.165; p
0.001) and (F = 103.65; p 0.001), respectively, indicating a low and moderate effect of
these moderate effects (F2 = 0.05) and (F2 = 0.14), respectively. When comparing the
change in slope to the moderate effect of organisational citizenship behaviours, as seen
in Figure 3, that knowledge creation was the most responsive process to this positive
effect (Dm = 0.276), followed by knowledge sharing process (Dm = 0.230) and
knowledge utilisation process (Dm = 0.199). Thus, the results of F-test validated the
moderate effects of H4, which contributed to the increase in (R2
) values in the tested
models (Carte and Russell, 2003).
5. Discussions and conclusions
Contemporary literature in the organisational environment disregard certain imperative
ideas and structures, including EL and OCB, that influence KM processes. This study is one
of the few attempts to develop and test an integrated conceptual model that correlates EL
with KM processes through the moderating role of OCB. This research adds a valuable
contribution to leadership literature, organisational behaviour and KM by clarifying that
organisations can adjust the negative behaviours of exploitative leaders through the passive
social exchange of subordinates’ OCB, which plays a vital role in improving KM processes
later on.
Figure 3.
Moderating effect of
OCB on the
relationship between
EL and KMP
IJOA
29,3
548
21. The findings of this research provide several important and significant insights. Firstly, the
results show that EL negatively affects KM processes in the Iraqi public universities. The
behaviour of exploitative leaders mainly contributes to reducing KU and implementation
amongst faculty and research teams. The reason is these leaders frequently attribute to
themselves the achievements that other academics contribute to solving problems and
achieving progress and may seek to exclude and obstruct talented academics if they fear
losing personal interests. This also affects faculty members’ emotional reactions and makes
them less likely to execute and use knowledge in the future (Aravena, 2017; Hou, 2017;
Obeidat et al., 2016). Additionally, EL leads directly to low levels of brainstorming and
sharing of new ideas and knowledge, reducing learning outcomes, research and growth
amongst academics in a manner less than KU process. When a failure or interruption in the
department or faculty works exists, academics realise that they can be the target of
exploitative leaders. They can receive reprimands and insults or, perhaps, even revenge,
which hinders opportunities for development and progress to preserve the personal goals
and gains of leaders, including their reputation of leadership (Schmid et al., 2019). This is one
of the most important barriers that faculty members face in promoting innovative and
proactive behaviour, as well as promoting trust, cooperation and collaboration in the
workplace (Hou, 2017; Mahdi et al., 2019). This also confirms that the KU process—which
reflects the real success of organisations—is the final result of KC and KS processes, and
thus is most affected by EL behaviours. The results indicate that subordinates stop using
knowledge partially as a primary reaction because they believe that KU process is the goal
of exploitative leaders—because they attribute the successes of others to themselves.
Consequently, this process becomes the most affected by EL.
Secondly, the results confirm that triggering emotional reactions amongst academics
against EL reduces their OCB, which is counterproductive and negatively dissonant with their
leaders’ behaviour. The results demonstrate that the negative relationship between EL and KM
processes is diminished when OCB is low. This finding is consistent with that of (Du et al.,
2020). OCB has significant short-term implications for the continued deterioration of KM
processes at universities. Consequently, the ability of the university to thrive, compete and
succeed in the future declines, as confirmed by the continuing deterioration in the local and
regional ranking of Iraqi universities. Something must be done to fix the disparity. In light of
these incidents, exploitative leaders must rethink their negative behaviour towards staff
members to preserve their long-term goals and objectives. The results of the study show a
significant positive impact of OCB on the relationship between EL and the creation of
innovative ideas and knowledge amongst academics. However, this moderate impact
has become positively medium and small on the relationship between EL and KS and
KU processes, respectively. These results indicate that the KC process is the first
process of KM processes in which faculty members react to re-assess and improve EL
behaviours. KS and KU processes are also lagging behind as rebuilding the dynamics of
trust, communication and collaboration and achieving success requires a relatively
long time of interaction between faculty members and their leaders in the workplace
(Hou, 2017). Overall, our results indicate that the cost of having exploitative leaders is
significant for universities and that the process of organisational recovery from the
negative behaviours of leaders consumes considerable resources, time, effort,
knowledge and money.
Thirdly, our findings affirm the appropriate approach used for managing knowledge
processes in the organisational context. If Iraqi universities are looking for success and
achievement, they must begin creating new ideas, insights and knowledge, and therefore
encourage their employees to share current and new knowledge to maximise the function of
Knowledge
management
processes
549
22. KU and implementation (Abdulmuhsin and Tarhini, 2021). When a university suffers from
EL, it will result in the university’s inability to use knowledge as the ultimate outcome of KC
and KS processes. This inability can jeopardise the university’s viability and lead to its
destruction. If university academics can react to the challenges of EL, the first and greatest
changes are in recovering the KC process, and then KS and KU processes will shift towards
recovery later. This is demonstrated in the results of this study regarding the moderating
role of OCB amongst academics.
This study provides major theoretical and practical contributions. In the theoretical
aspect, this study is one of the few that develop an understanding of how EL affects KM
processes, focussing on the moderating role of OCB in such a relationship. Many researchers
such as Abdulmuhsin and Tarhini (2021), Latif et al. (2020), Ml
adkov
a (2012), and
Naqshbandi and Jasimuddin (2018) argued that organisations must expand leaders’ role in
KM, particularly in understanding the negative behaviours of destructive and EL in
organisational work practices (Krasikova et al., 2013; Schmid et al., 2014; Schyns and
Schilling, 2013). However, they disregarded the structural connotation of EL and its impact
on KM processes. Previous researchers mainly explored the influence of positive leadership
styles (Hou, 2017). On the contrary, we find that EL, which is a periodic negative behaviour
of several leaders today, hinders the KC, KS and KU of subordinates at the individual level
and spreads negative emotions at the group level in the workplace. EL inhibits employees’
passion for applying knowledge. Unlike prior researchers, we used KBV, SET and LMX as
theoretical guides to illustrate our multivariate model of the effects of leaders’ exploitative
behaviour on KM processes and the moderating role of OCB. The results suggest that group
affective responses have a moderating influence on the negative work events caused by EL,
thereby affecting subordinates’ adoption of KM processes. This study fills the gap in
organisational research by recognising subordinates’ reactions to their leaders’ negative
behaviours in the workplace according to the theories mentioned above.
This study also presents a conceptual model where the field test illustrates the complex
role of OCB as a modified variable in the relationship between EL and KM processes. The
interest in fostering the right foundations for the development of OCB in Iraqi universities
can have a major and decisive impact on establishing an organisational immune system for
faculty members against all kinds of organisational diseases, including EL. In addition,
most studies on EL and KM processes focus on developed countries in the West and
Southeast Asia. This study fills the research gap by focussing on a developing country,
namely, Iraq, as a sample of a Middle Eastern country.
Regarding the practical contributions, the results show that EL behaviours are more
widespread and deeper than before, and Iraqi universities should be aware of this. Higher
education policymakers in Iraq must reassess the selection and promotion systems of
leaders in universities. The presence of exploitative leaders can cost universities a
significant waste of resources, including knowledge. Reducing or eliminating EL consumes
time and effort (e.g. reactivating leadership training programmes). This study also
reinforces the idea of maintaining the OCB of faculty members to continue to maintain a
high passion and morale against the negative behaviours of academic leaders, thus
sustaining the ability of universities to survive and compete locally, regionally and globally.
In addition, we encourage universities to establish professional academic networks to create,
share and use knowledge considering the impact of KM processes on the sustainability of
OCB towards colleagues and the integration of reactions based on trust, cooperation and
qualification. This study also uses a set of measures (EL, OCB and KM processes) whose
reliability and validity are verified. Other researchers can also use them in future leadership
and KM research.
IJOA
29,3
550
23. Despite achieving its main objective, this study has a few limitations. The main
limitation is that we collected the data from faculty members at four public universities in
northern Iraq. Given that many countries exist in the Middle East, future research in other
Middle Eastern countries can be useful, whether in public or private universities. In addition,
we strongly encourage future research to replicate this analysis in different cultural contexts with
samples from various industries. Future studies can include other theoretical relevant factors. For
example, EL behaviours in organisations have multiple social aspects, so exploring additional
factors (e.g. friendship in the workplace) that may deter such negative behaviours of leaders for
improving KM processes will be useful. Moreover, the need to consider academics’ behaviour
towards research variables over various periods, compare the results, follow a qualitative
approach and examine the views of the other side of the relationship such as leaders, remain.
Future studies can adopt a large sample size to provide broad evidence on the subject. All of these
require an in-depth investigation of the relationship dynamics between subordinates and leaders,
SET and KBV.
References
Abdulmuhsin, A.A. and Tarhini, A. (2020), “Impact of wise leadership, workplace friendships on open
innovation in family firms: a developing country perspective”, Journal of Family Business
Management, Vol. 1, pp. 1-24.
Abdulmuhsin, A.A. and Tarhini, A. (2021), “Impact of knowledge leadership on the challenges
and innovative performance of virtual teams: an empirical examination in oil sector
companies”, International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 1-32.
Abusweilem, M.A. and Abualous, S. (2019), “The impact of knowledge management process and
business intelligence on organizational performance”, Management Science Letters, Vol. 9
No. 12, pp. 2143-2156.
Adeinat, I.M. and Abdulfatah, F.H. (2019), “Organizational culture and knowledge management
processes: case study in a public university”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge
Management Systems, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 35-53.
Akhavan, P., Ramezan, M., Yazdi Moghaddam, J. and Mehralian, G. (2014), “Exploring the relationship
between ethics, knowledge creation and organizational performance”, VINE, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Al Ahbabi, S.A., Singh, S.K., Balasubramanian, S. and Gaur, S.S. (2019), “Employee perception of
impact of knowledge management processes on public sector performance”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 351-373.
Al Saifi, S.A. (2019), “Toward a theoretical model of learning organization and knowledge management
processes”, International Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 55-80.
Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., Kamaludin, A. and Shaalan, K. (2018), “The impact of knowledge
management processes on information systems: a systematic review”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 43 No., pp. 173-187.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Review: knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, p. 107.
Aljuwaiber, A. (2020), “Business development through knowledge sharing among members of sectoral
committees”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 6.
Andreeva, T., Martín-de Castro, G. and Kianto, A. (2011), “Knowledge processes, knowledge-intensity
and innovation: a moderated mediation analysis”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15
No. 6, pp. 1016-1034.
Aravena, F. (2017), “Destructive leadership behavior: an exploratory study in Chile”, Leadership and
Policy in Schools, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 83-96.
Knowledge
management
processes
551
24. Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (2018), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Atapattu, M. and Ranawake, G. (2017), “Transformational and transactional leadership behaviours and
their effect on knowledge workers’ propensity for knowledge management processes”, Journal
of Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 03, p. 1750026.
Aujirapongpan, S., Vadhanasindhu, P., Chandrachai, A. and Cooparat, P. (2010), “Indicators of
knowledge management capability for KM effectiveness”, VINE, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 183-203.
Avolio, B.J. (2007), “Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 25-33.
Balestrin, A., Vargas, L.M. and Fayard, P. (2008), “Knowledge creation in small-firm network”, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 94-106.
Bashir, M. and Farooq, R. (2019), “The synergetic effect of knowledge management and business model
innovation on firm competence”, International Journal of Innovation Science, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 362-387.
Bavik, Y.L., Tang, P.M., Shao, R. and Lam, L.W. (2018), “Ethical leadership and employee knowledge
sharing: exploring dual-mediation paths”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 322-332.
Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Sabherwal, R. (2015), Knowledge Management: systems and Processes,
Taylor and Francis: Routledge, New York, NY.
Biasutti, M. and El-Deghaidy, H. (2012), “Using wiki in teacher education: impact on knowledge management
processes and student satisfaction”, Computers and Education, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 861-872.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Brender-Ilan, Y. and Sheaffer, Z. (2019), “How do self-efficacy, narcissism and autonomy mediate the
link between destructive leadership and counterproductive work behaviour”, Asia Pacific
Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 212-222.
Bryant, S.E. (2016), “The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and
exploiting organizational knowledge”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 32-44.
Burns, W.A. (2017), “A descriptive literature review of harmful leadership styles: definitions,
commonalities, measurements, negative impacts, and ways to improve these harmful leadership
styles”, Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, Vol. 3 No. 1, p. 33.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications and
Programming, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, London.
Camps, J., Decoster, S. and Stouten, J. (2012), “My share is fair, so I don’t care: the moderating role of
distributive justice in the perception of leaders’ self-serving behavior”, Journal of Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 49-59.
Cao, Y., Akoorie, M. and Xiang, Y. (2013), “The impact of knowledge governance on knowledge
sharing”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 36-52.
Caponecchia, C., Sun, A.Y.Z. and Wyatt, A. (2011), “Psychopaths’ at work? Implications of lay persons’
use of labels and behavioural criteria for psychopathy”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107
No. 4, pp. 399-408.
Carte, T.A. and Russell, C.J. (2003), “In pursuit of moderation: nine common errors and their solutions”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 479-501.
Cepeda-Carrion, I., Martelo-Landroguez, S., Leal-Rodríguez, A.L. and Leal-Mill
an, A. (2017), “Critical
processes of knowledge management: an approach toward the creation of customer value”,
European Research on Management and Business Economics, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-7.
Chan, S.H.J. and Lai, H.Y.I. (2017), “Understanding the link between communication satisfaction,
perceived justice and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70,
pp. 214-223.
IJOA
29,3
552
25. Chang, C. L-h. and Lin, T.C. (2015), “The role of organizational culture in the knowledge management
process”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 433-455.
Chen, X., Wei, S. and Rice, R.E. (2020), “Integrating the bright and dark sides of communication
visibility for knowledge management and creativity: the moderating role of regulatory focus”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 111, p. 106421.
Chiu, C.K., Lin, C.P., Tsai, Y.H. and Teh, S.F. (2018), “Enhancing knowledge sharing in high-tech firms”,
Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 468-491.
Cramwinckel, F.M., De Cremer, D. and van Dijke, M. (2012), “Dirty hands make dirty leaders?! The
effects of touching dirty objects on rewarding unethical subordinates as a function of a leader’s
self-interest”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 93-100.
Dalkir, K. (2017), Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice, The MIT Press, London.
Decoster, S., Stouten, J., Camps, J. and Tripp, T.M. (2014), “The role of employees’ OCB and leaders’
hindrance stress in the emergence of self-serving leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25
No. 4, pp. 647-659.
Denizhan Kalkan, V. (2008), “An overall view of knowledge management challenges for global
business”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 390-400.
DeShong, H.L., Grant, D.M. and Mullins-Sweatt, S.N. (2015), “Comparing models of counterproductive
workplace behaviors: the five-factor model and the dark triad”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 74, pp. 55-60.
Ding, G., Liu, H., Huang, Q., Gu, J., Carayannis, E. and Tsui, E. (2017), “Moderating effects of guanxi and
face on the relationship between psychological motivation and knowledge-sharing in China”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1.
Du, J., Li, N.N. and Luo, Y.J. (2020), “Authoritarian leadership in organizational change and employees’
active reactions: Have-to and willing-to perspectives”, Front Psychol, Vol. 10.
Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and Pagon, M. (2002), “Social undermining in the workplace”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 331-351.
Durst, S. and Runar Edvardsson, I. (2012), “Knowledge management in SMEs: a literature review”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 879-903.
Dzenopoljac, V., Alasadi, R., Zaim, H. and Bontis, N. (2018), “Impact of knowledge management processes on
business performance: evidence from Kuwait”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 77-87.
Eby, L.T., Butts, M.M., Hoffman, B.J. and Sauer, J.B. (2015), “Cross-lagged relations between mentoring
received from supervisors and employee OCBs: Disentangling causal direction and identifying
boundary conditions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 1275-1285.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. and Skogstad, A. (2007), “Destructive leadership behaviour: a definition and
conceptual model”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 207-216.
Elche, D., Ruiz-Palomino, P. and Linuesa-Langreo, J. (2020), “Servant leadership and organizational
citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32
No. 6, pp. 2035-2053.
Finkelstein, M.A. (2012), “Individualism/collectivism and organizational citizenship behavior: an
integrative framework”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 40
No. 10, pp. 1633-1643.
Fontes, K.B., Alarcao, A.C.J., Santana, R.G., Pelloso, S.M. and de Barros Carvalho, M.D. (2019),
“Relationship between leadership, bullying in the workplace and turnover intention among
nurses”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 535-542.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
p. 382.
Knowledge
management
processes
553
26. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (2018), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gaviria-Marin, M., Merig
o, J.M. and Baier-Fuentes, H. (2019), “Knowledge management: a global
examination based on bibliometric analysis”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 140, pp. 194-220.
Gilstrap, J.B. and Hart, T.A. (2020), “How employee behaviors effect organizational change and
stability”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 109, pp. 120-131.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2015), “Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities
perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.
Gomez, C.M. (2007), Knowledge Management and Employee Productivity, Master of Science, San Jose
State University, San Jose.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K. (2007), “A new model of work role performance: positive
behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50
No. 2, pp. 327-347.
Griffin, M.A., Parker, S.K. and Mason, C.M. (2010), “Leader vision and the development of adaptive and
proactive performance: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 1,
pp. 174-182.
Gu, Q., Tang, T.L.P. and Jiang, W. (2013), “Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity?
Employee identification with leader and leader–member exchange (LMX) in the chinese
context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 126 No. 3, pp. 513-529.
Gu, J., Wang, G., Liu, H., Song, D. and He, C. (2018), “Linking authoritarian leadership to employee
creativity”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 384-406.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall,
New York, NY.
Harandi, A.A.H., Nia, M.B. and Valmohammadi, C. (2018), “The impact of social technologies on
knowledge management processes: the moderator effect of e-literacy”, Kybernetes, Vol. 48 No. 8,
pp. 1731-1756.
Hayes, A.F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, The
Guilford Press, New York, NY.
He, Q.Y. and Chen, C.H. (2014), “The empirical study on influence mechanism of positive, negative
leadership behavior on team innovation performance-based on the contingency model of team
emotional atmosphere”, Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, Vol. 6 No. 6,
pp. 2647-2653.
Heisig, P. and Vorbeck, J. (2001), “Benchmarking survey results”, in Mertins, K., Heisig, P. and Vorbeck,
J. (Eds) Knowledge Management Best Practices in europe, 1st ed. Springer, Berlin, pp. 97-123.
Hoogervorst, N., De Cremer, D. and van Dijke, M. (2011), “Why leaders not always disapprove of
unethical follower behavior: It depends on the leader’s self-interest and accountability”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 SE-START NO. /SE-STARTS1, pp. 29-41.
Hou, X. (2017), “Multilevel influence of destructive leadership on millennial generation employees’
innovative behavior”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 45 No. 7,
pp. 1113-1126.
Itiola, K.O., Odebiyi, I.I. and Alabi, E. (2014), “Empirical study of impact of organizational citizenship
behaviour dimensions on job satisfaction among administrative staff of Osun state owned
tertiary institutions, Nigeria”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 8.
Jali, M.N., Abas, Z., Ariffin, A.S. and Baluch, N. (2016), “Social innovation and strategic knowledge
management processes: a critical conceptual overview”, Knowledge Management International
Conference (KMICe), 29-30 August, Chiang Mai.
IJOA
29,3
554
